Mamta Verma v. Union of India (2017)

Introduction 

This landmark judgment addresses the constitutional rights of pregnant persons facing severe fetal abnormalities, specifically anencephaly, and establishes judicial precedent for permitting medical termination of pregnancy beyond statutory gestational limits when the foetus is non-viable and continuation threatens the mental health of the pregnant person. 

Facts 

• Mamta Verma, aged 26 years, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy. 
• Her foetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a severe neural tube defect where skull bones remain unformed, which is untreatable and incompatible with life, causing certain death during or shortly after birth. 
• The condition also posed danger to the mother's life and was causing immense mental agony to the petitioner. 
• On August 4, 2017, the Court directed examination by a Medical Board at Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, which was reconstituted to include Dr. Ashok Anand (HOD Obstetrics and Gynecology), Dr. Kamlesh Jagyashi (HOD Neurology), Dr. N.R. Sutay (HOD Pediatrics), and Dr. Shilpa Domkundwar (HOD Radiology). 
• The Medical Board examined the petitioner on August 8, 2017, determining she was 25 weeks and 1 day into her pregnancy. 
• The petitioner had the support of her husband in her decision-making, and both understood the fetal abnormality and high risk of fetal mortality. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the Supreme Court should permit medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory gestational limit when the foetus is diagnosed with a fatal abnormality incompatible with life? 
• Whether continuation of pregnancy with a non-viable foetus causing severe mental injury to the pregnant person justifies judicial intervention under Article 32 of the Constitution? 
• What role should medical board opinions play in determining whether pregnancy termination should be permitted in cases involving severe fetal abnormalities beyond statutory limits? 

Court's Observations 

Medical Evidence and Fetal Viability: 

• The Court noted that the foetus was without a skull and would not be able to survive outside the uterus. The condition of anencephaly is non-compatible with life, making continuation of pregnancy medically futile. 

Mental Health Impact: 

• The Medical Board concluded that continuation of pregnancy would pose severe mental injury to the petitioner. The Court recognized that forcing the petitioner to carry a non-viable foetus to term would cause immense mental agony. 

Medical Safety: 

• The Medical Board reported that no additional risk to the petitioner's life was involved if she underwent termination of pregnancy at this stage. 

Judicial Approach: 

• The Court emphasized that in the interests of justice, particularly considering the pregnant person's mental health and the futility of continuing a pregnancy with a non-viable foetus, termination should be permitted under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. 

Ratio Decidendi: 

• The judgment established that when a foetus is diagnosed with fatal abnormalities incompatible with life and continuation of pregnancy poses severe mental injury to the pregnant person, courts may permit medical termination beyond statutory gestational limits under Article 32, guided by expert medical board opinions, in the interests of justice and the pregnant person's constitutional rights. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner be permitted to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. The termination was to be performed by doctors at the hospital where she had undergone medical examination, under supervision of the Medical Board, which was directed to maintain complete records of the procedure. This judgment reinforces the constitutional protection of reproductive autonomy and mental health of pregnant persons when facing non-viable pregnancies due to severe fetal abnormalities.