‘Imperative to protect life of unborn child’: Centre seeks recall of HC order allowing termination of pregnancy

Listing the matter on January 19, the HC asked AIIMS to place its report indicating the physical and mental health of the woman and foetus.

In its January 4 order, the HC had observed that the psychiatric evaluation report of AIIMS indicated that the woman was suffering from “extreme trauma” due to her husband’s death. It opined that at this juncture, the woman, who was 29 weeks pregnant, should be permitted to terminate her pregnancy “because allowing the petitioner to continue with the pregnancy can impair her mental stability as she is showing suicidal tendencies”.

Thereafter, the Centre moved an application seeking recall of the HC’s January 4 order. It referred to the SC’s judgment of October 16, 2023, in ‘X v Union of India and Anr.’, dealing with the termination of a 26-week pregnancy; the SC had recalled its earlier order allowing termination of pregnancy beyond the stipulated period and disallowed the termination given the medical board’s opinion.

The Centre said it is “imperative” for the HC to “consider protecting the right to life of the unborn child so the child has a fair chance of survival”. Meanwhile the HC, in its January 15 order, noted the medical board’s report wherein the board has said, “As care providers, we are committed to providing best possible care to the mother and foetus, the mother’s interest being paramount. Taking cognizance of the fact that the patient has severe depression with a tendency to self-harm, it is strongly recommended that she be admitted and treated on priority. It is highly likely that the depression may persist, if not worsen after delivery. The effects of pre-term delivery on the mother should also be considered. This being her first pregnancy, a pre-term induction of labour has a high chance of failure and may lead to cesarean section. This may have serious implications on her future pregnancies.”

The board has further said, the HC noted, that as per the MTP act, the “provision of termination of pregnancies beyond 24 weeks is to be done for foetuses having significant abnormalities: and that “foeticide in this case is neither justified nor ethical as the foetus is grossly normal”. Meanwhile, AIIMS also moved an application seeking directions, stating that on January 13, a “review meeting was held… and a report was prepared stating that ‘… on clinical grounds, it is advisable that the pregnancy be continued for another 2-3 weeks for the betterment of health of mother and child”.

The HC had in its January 4 order had asked AIIMS to conduct the procedure “even though the Petitioner has crossed her gestation period of 24 weeks” while making it clear that the order had been passed in the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case and the same should not be treated as a precedent.
The woman had said that since the gestation period of the petitioner was over 24 weeks, she was not allowed to medically terminate her pregnancy and so had approached the HC.