27 March 2017
Supreme Court
Download

SHEETAL SHANKAR SALVI Vs UNION OF INDIA

Bench: S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO
Case number: W.P.(C) No.-000174-000174 / 2017
Diary number: 8360 / 2017
Advocates: SATYA MITRA Vs


1

Page 1

1

Reportable  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.174 OF 2017

SHEETAL SHANKAR SALVI AND ANR PETITIONER(S) VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R  

Petitioner  No.1  –  Sheetal  Shankar  Salvi,  has approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to the respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.  

By order dated 22.3.2017, while issuing notice to the respondents, this Court gave a direction for examination of petitioner no.1 by a Medical Board consisting of the following seven Doctors :  

1. Dr.  Avinash  N.  Supe,  Director  (Medical Education  &  Major  Hospitals)  &  Dean  (G&K)  – Chairman 2. Dr.  Shubhangi  Parkar,  Professor  and  HOD, Psychiatry, KEM Hospital 3. Dr.  Amar  Pazare,  professor  and  HOD, Medicine, KEM Hosptial 4. Dr. Indrani Hemantkumar Chincholi, Professor and HOD, Anaesthesia, KEM Hospital 5. Dr.  Y.S.  Nandanwar,  Professor  and  HOD, Obstetrics, KEM Hospitals

2

Page 2

2

6. Dr.  Anahita  Chauhan,  Professor  and  Unit Head,  Obstetrics  &  Gynecology,  LTMMC  and  LTMG Hospitals 7. Dr.  Hemangini  Thakkar,  Addl.  Professor, Radiology, KEM Hospital.  

Petitioner No.1 is into her 27 weeks of pregnancy. This is also borne by the medical report dated 25.3.2017, received from the Dean & Director (ME & MH)'s Office, Seth G.S. Medical College & KEM Hospital, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.  

It is not in dispute that the fetus of petitioner no.1 has been diagnosed with polyhydramnios with Arnold Chairi  malformation  Type  2  severe  hydrocephalus  with lumbosacral  meningo  myelocele  and  spina  bifida  with tethered cord.

The  Medical  Board  has  submitted  its  report  dated 25.3.2017. On perusal of the said report, we find that the said  report  contains  the  following  significant  features for the purposes of passing this order :

(1) The diagnosis of Arnold Chairi malformation Type 2 with meningo myelocele with tethered cord has been made on the basis of ultrasonography.  (2) The  mother's  physical  condition  is  normal and there is no physical risk to the mother, due to continuation or termination of pregnancy. But she is anxious about outcome of pregnancy. (3) The  fetus  has  severe  physical  anomalies which will compromise post natal quality of life and the child will have severe physical and mental morbidity on survival.

3

Page 3

3

(4) If the pregnancy is terminated at 27 weeks, the baby may be born alive and may survive for variable period of time.  

Apparently, it has not been possible for the aforesaid Medical Board to determine the period of time for which the baby is likely to survive. It also appears from the said report that the baby is not likely to survive like a normal baby.  

However, having regard to the fact that there is no danger to the mother's life and the likelihood that 'the baby may be born alive and may survive for variable period of time, we do not consider it appropriate in the interests of justice to direct the respondents to allow petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. In fact, the aforesaid Medical Board has itself stated that it does  not  advise  medical  termination  of  pregnancy  for petitioner no.1 on medical grounds.  

The  only  other  ground  that  appears  from  the observations made in the aforesaid medical report apart from  the  medical  grounds,  is  that  petitioner  no.1  is anxious about the outcome of the pregnancy. We find that the termination of pregnancy cannot be permitted due to this reason.  

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not possible for us to grant permission to petitioner no.1 to terminate the life of the fetus.

4

Page 4

4

In view of the above, as at presently advised, we decline the prayer of the petitioners for directing the respondents to allow Petitioner No.1 to undergo medical termination of the pregnancy.   

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.  

.......................J [S. A. BOBDE]

.......................J [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

NEW DELHI; MARCH 27, 2017.