The Madras High Court has quashed a government hospital’s refusal to terminate a pregnancy that had crossed 24 weeks, after scans revealed serious brain abnormalities in the foetus. Justice P.T. Asha passed the order on October 15, 2026.
Background
B T Pavithra Kumari, who already has a young son, conceived for the second time in early 2026. A later scan showed mild fetal ventriculomegaly, an enlargement of the brain’s fluid-filled chambers. A detailed scan on October 5, 2026 then recorded agenesis of the corpus callosum, where the nerve bridge linking the two halves of the brain has not formed properly, along with moderate enlargement on both sides. A foetal MRI the next day confirmed this. Doctors cautioned about risks including speech delay, epilepsy and intellectual disability, though the extent could not be predicted before birth.
She and her husband decided to end the pregnancy. However, the Medical Board of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and Government Hospital for Women and Children, Egmore, declined permission in Form D on October 13, 2026, saying the abnormalities were not lethal and asking for genetic testing. She then moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, termination beyond 24 weeks for substantial foetal abnormalities needs a Medical Board’s approval, which had not been given here. Relying on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and A v. State of Maharashtra, it stressed that a woman’s consent in such matters is paramount.
Justice Asha said:
“In the instant case, the scan reports clearly show substantial fetal abnormalities. The mother has the right to take a decision as to whether she would like to bring such a child into the world, particularly when the child is not going to lead a normal life. Therefore, this Court has to bow down to the decision of the petitioner / mother who has taken a painful and extreme step by taking note of the considerable risk involved in this child’s chance of leading a dignified and self-sustained life.”
The Court held:
“Therefore, in the light of the above judicial pronouncements and taking note of the scan reports which clearly shows the possibility of the child being born with abnormalities, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and the respondents are directed to terminate the medical pregnancy of the petitioner as per medical records and the termination shall be done by the registered medical practitioner, forthwith.”
The writ petition was allowed, with no costs.
