In a groundbreaking ruling, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that a woman’s mental health, personal autonomy, and social circumstances are valid grounds for abortion even beyond the statutory 24-week period under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. In ABC v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 7491 of 2025], the Court permitted a 31-year-old woman to terminate her 25-week pregnancy, citing emotional distress, financial insecurity, and lack of social support as critical determinants. The judgment is a significant reaffirmation of reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, an adult woman referred to as ABC to protect her identity, approached the Bombay High Court seeking medical termination of her pregnancy at 25 weeks. The pregnancy, she claimed, resulted from the failure of contraceptive methods during a consensual relationship that had since ended. She contended that continuing the pregnancy would severely affect her mental health and subject her to social stigma, especially since her family was unaware of her condition and her former partner had refused to support her.
Medical Board’s Report: A Nuanced Diagnosis
On 13 June 2025, the Court ordered the constitution of a Medical Board at Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, in compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 and Rule 3A(b)(ii) of the MTP Rules.
The Board’s report, submitted on 17 June 2025, concluded that:
- The petitioner was medically fit to undergo the termination procedure.
- No substantial fetal anomalies were found, although the effects of early pregnancy alcohol and tobacco use couldn’t be entirely ruled out.
- Psychiatrically, the petitioner had no active disorder, but expressed anguish due to financial stress, broken relationships, and a history of substance use.
- While the report did not find medical grounds strictly under Section 3(2B) of the MTP Act (which allows abortion beyond 24 weeks only in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities), it noted the psychological distress and recommended that, if the Court deems her anguish sufficient, she could undergo MTP at a licensed institution.
Arguments
For the Petitioner: Advocate Ms. Nikita Raje argued that:
- The pregnancy resulted from contraceptive failure.
- The petitioner lacked financial and emotional support.
- Continuing the pregnancy would cause grave mental trauma.
- Her autonomy and right to choose must be respected.
For the State: AGP Ms. M.P. Thakur submitted that:
- There were no congenital abnormalities.
- The pregnancy was not a result of coercion or rape.
- If the pregnancy were continued, the State would take full responsibility for the child, including adoption.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
The Bench, comprising Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, interacted directly with the petitioner, the Medical Board, and both counsels. The Court emphasised several important points:
1. Primacy of Autonomy and Reproductive Choice
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the High Court reiterated that the consent of the pregnant person and their right to reproductive autonomy are paramount under Article 21. The decision to terminate is personal and protected by constitutional guarantees of dignity and privacy.
2. Illness and Anguish as Valid Grounds
Despite the absence of a diagnosable psychiatric illness or fetal abnormality, the Court accepted that the petitioner’s “anguish” caused by the circumstances—abandonment by partner, financial insecurity, social stigma, and career disruption—constituted a “grave injury to mental health.”
“Continuation of the pregnancy shall adversely affect the already disturbed psychological condition of the Petitioner.”
3. Responsibility of the Partner
The Court took a compassionate yet firm view of the woman’s social vulnerability. After being impleaded as Respondent No. 6, the petitioner’s former partner, referred to as XYZ, was directed to appear before the Court. He voluntarily agreed to transfer ₹1,00,000 to her for medical, legal, and miscellaneous expenses. The Court recorded his assurance to support the petitioner during the medical procedure if she desired.
Procedure for Termination
Acknowledging the petitioner’s wish to terminate the pregnancy through feticide—a procedure involving stopping the fetal heartbeat—the Court followed the State of Maharashtra’s Guidance Note [Clause V(c)]. Since Sir J. J. Hospital lacked facilities for such a procedure, the Court:
- Directed the petitioner to report at J.J. Hospital on 20 June 2025.
- Ordered her transfer to N.M. Wadia Hospital, Mumbai, a recognised centre with fetal medicine expertise.
- Permitted the fetal medicine expert at N.M. Wadia Hospital to carry out the procedure using appropriate mechano-pharmaceutical methods.
Legal Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a watershed moment in advancing reproductive justice in India. It reinforces several key legal principles:
1. Mental Health is Integral to Reproductive Rights
By holding that mental anguish qualifies as sufficient ground, even absent clinical diagnosis, the Court expands the understanding of health in line with WHO’s definition, which includes emotional and psychological well-being.
2. Beyond Medical Technicalities
The Court emphasised that judicial discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution can override procedural limits under the MTP Act if fundamental rights are at stake.
“The medical board cannot merely state that the grounds under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act are not met.” – quoting Supreme Court precedent
3. Judicial Role in Safeguarding Fundamental Rights
The Court acted as a protector of rights rather than a mere adjudicator, assessing the nuanced realities of the petitioner’s life circumstances. This proactive judicial approach is aligned with the constitutional vision of justice.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale and Justice Revati Mohite Dere, constituting the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, observed:
“Applying the principles of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court and conscious of the right of the Petitioner to reproductive freedom, her autonomy over the body and her right to choice, and having considered the findings and opinion of the Medical Board pertaining to the psychological condition of the Petitioner as well as the averments in the Petition, and our interaction with her, we are satisfied that continuance of the pregnancy shall adversely affect the already disturbed psychological condition of the Petitioner. Hence, in the peculiar facts of this case, we permit the Petitioner to medically terminate the pregnancy.”
Comparative Perspective
In countries like the UK (under the Abortion Act, 1967), abortions beyond 24 weeks are allowed under broader grounds, including significant risk to the woman’s mental health or well-being. The Bombay High Court’s judgment aligns Indian jurisprudence closer to international human rights standards by acknowledging mental anguish and personal autonomy as legitimate.
Court’s Ruling at a Glance
- Woman permitted to abort at 25 weeks citing mental anguish.
- No fetal abnormality or medical emergency required.
- Court relied on petitioner’s free will and psychological state.
- Recognized woman’s right to autonomy and reproductive freedom.
- Court ensured financial aid and institutional medical support.
- Partner directed to provide monetary and emotional support.
- Procedure allowed via feticide at licensed centre.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision in ABC v. State of Maharashtra is a compassionate, rights-based affirmation of a woman’s autonomy over her body and reproductive choices. It marks a progressive shift in the interpretation of abortion laws in India—one that transcends rigid medical checklists to embrace the lived reality of women. This ruling is not only a legal victory for the petitioner but a beacon for others caught in similar predicaments.
The Court’s sensitivity, its willingness to engage with the petitioner personally, and its invocation of constitutional values make this judgment a crucial precedent in the landscape of reproductive rights in India.