MRS. X AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 07-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2017] l S.C.R. 687 
MRS. X AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 81 of2017) 
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
Constitution of India - Arts. 32, 2 I - Medical termination of 
24 weeks pregnancy - Sought by pregnant lady-petitioner no.I· -
Examination by medical board- Fetus suffering from bilalteral renal 
agenesis (a/Jsence of kidneys) and anhydramnios (absence of 
amniotic fluid/'- Risk of death within womb and no chance of long 
term post natal survival and continuation of pregnancy could 
endanger physical and mental health of the petitioner - Held: Mother 
has a right to preserve her life in view of foreseeable danger in 
case the pregnancy is allowed to run its fall course - Right of.bodily 
integrity calls for a permission to allow her to terminate her 
pregnancy - Report of the Medical Board warrants inference that 
the continuance of the pregnancy involves the risk to the life of the 
petitioner and a possible grave injury to her physical or mental 
health as well as death of fetus outside the womb - Thus, the 
petitioner permitted to undergo termination of her pregnancy under 
the provisions of the Act - Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 
I97 I - ss.3(2)(i), 5. 
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, I 97 I - Termination of 
pregnancy - So!fght for by 24 weeks pregnant lady-petitioner No. 
I -Affuiavit not sworn by petitioner no.I but by the doctor-petitioner 
No. 3 - Effect of - Held: A relator action may not be permitted in a 
case of this kind - In a given case petitioner no. I may be under 
some misconception or under coercion - However, petitioner no. I 
was examined by the Medical Board about her mental condition -
She did not have any psychiatric or emotional problems - Thus, 
petitioner no. I is allowed the relief - However, such action must be 
supported by affidavits of the petitioner no. I herself - Hospital 
would take her consent before terminating her pregnancy -Affidavit. 
Suchita Srivastava and Anr. 
v. 
Chandigarh 
Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1 - referred to. 
687 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
688 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009) 9 sec i 
Case Law Reference 
referred to 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
Para8 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 81 
of2017 
B 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Sneha Mukherjee, Satya Mitra, Advs. for the Petitioner.s. 
Ranjit Kumar, S.G., Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, G. S. Makker, Nish,mt R. 
Katneshwarkar, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Application for non-disclosure ofnames and detail of petitioner 
No. (and 2 is allowed. 
2. The. P-etitioner No. 1- Mrs.Xis about 22 years' old.· She has 
approached this Court under Artilce 32 of the Constitution oflndia seeking 
directions'to the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination 
of her pregnancy. According to her, fetus which is about 22 weeks old . 
on the date of the petitio!l has a condition knowns as bilateral. re~al . 
agenesis and anhydramnios. She apprehends that.the fetus has no chance 
of survival and the delievery may endanger her life. 
3. In order to verify the condition of petitioner No: I, this Court by 
order dated 03.02.2017 while issuing notice to the respondents directed 
examination of the petitioner by a medical Board consisting of following 
seven Doctors : 
I. Dr. Avinash N. Supe, Director (Medical Education & Major 
Hospitals) & Dean (G&K)- Chairman 
2. Dr. Shubhangi Parkar, Professor and HOD, Psychiatry, J(EM 
Hospital 
3. Dr. Amar Pazare, professor and HOD, Medicine, KEM Hosptial 
4. Dr. Indrani Hemantkuinar Chincholi, Professor and HOD: 
Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital . 
5. Dr. Y.S. Nandanwar, Professor and HOD, Obstetrics, KEM 
. Hospitals 
MRS. X AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS 
689 
6. Dr. Anahita Chauhan, Professor and Unit Head, Obstetrics & 
A 
Gynecology, LTMMC and LTMG Hospitals 
7. Dr. Hemangini Thakkar, Addi. Professor, Radiology, KEM 
Hospital. 
·" 4. By its reportdated 04.02.2017, the Medical Board as constituted 
· bytflis Court has given its expert opinion upon reviewing the complete 
· · hist'ory as narrated by the petitimier No. l and her brother alongwith all 
'"ttfe'piipei's:'The petitioner No. ·1 was examined by all the Board Members 
'with' specific recourse to the specialty: 
· 
... {.._ 
··. •' 
... r· : .5.,T~e learned Solicitor.General who appears on behalf of Union of 
. J119ia had the ·report evalu.ated by ,Doctor Veen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.