XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU PHD AND ORS

          Digitally
          signed by
          RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU    PATIL
PATIL     Date:
          2026.08.24
          18:20:50                                  1/3                  2 WP.10846.2026.odt
          +0530




                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 10846 OF 2026
                       XYZ                                        ..   Petitioner
                                         Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.            ..   Respondents
                                                   …
                       Ms Manisha Jagtap, appointed Advocate through Legal Aid, for
                       the Petitioner.
                       Ms M. P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
                                                      ...

                                           CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                  ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

                                           DATED : 24th AUGUST, 2026

                       P.C:-

                       1.      In light of our direction, a report from the Medical Board
                       constituted at Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals is placed before us.

                               The report referred to the gestational age of 31 weeks
                       and 3 days (+/- 3 weeks), and on examining the patient, who
                       had expressed her strong desire to terminate the pregnancy,
                       an opinion is expressed that, if the pregnancy is terminated at
                       this stage, the fetus would have a probability of being born
                       alive and may require intensive neonatal care.

                               The report comprise of opinions of the heads of various
                       departments, including the Assistant Professor and Head,
                       Department of Pediatrics; Associate Professor, Department of
                       Medicine and Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesia,
                       and at the end of their individual opinions, the Medical Board
                       has expressed its opinion as below:

                       Rushikesh
                                 2/3                   2 WP.10846.2026.odt


                            COMMITTEE OPINION
            AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION AND STUDY OF
            ULTRASONOGRAPHY REPORTS, THE BOARD IS OF
            THE OPINION:
                  The patient and her mother have been thoroughly
            counselled. They have expressed a strong desire for
            termination of pregnancy at this stage. It is possible
            that the baby may be born alive and may survive with
            appropriate medical care and interventions. As the
            pregnancy is beyond 24 weeks and the foetus is not
            anomalous, this Medical Board is not empowered to
            grant the termination of pregnancy under the existing
            legal provisions.
                  However, if so directed by the Hon'ble Court,
            termination may be considered in the interest of the
            mother's psychological health and to prevent grave,
            irreparable harm to her mental well-being if she is
            compelled to continue the pregnancy against her
            wishes. Single Live intrauterine gestation of mean
            gestational age 31 weeks and 3 days (+/- 3 weeks) with
            breech Presentation fundoposterior placenta EFW-
            1640 gm with normal AFI & Doppler study As fetus has
            crossed more than 24 weeks of gestation, fetus may be
            live-born and relatives have been counselled that fetus
            may require NICU support. Medical termination of
            pregnancy can be permitted with due risk.
                  Patient is not suffering from any psychiatric
            illness. No contraindication for MTP from psychiatry
            side. Patient can be taken for MTP with due risk. Senior
            dermatology reference. Patient fit for procedure from
            anaesthesia point of view.



2.     The Petitioner before us is a minor girl and pursuing her
education.

       While she was pursuing her education, she was taken to
the hospital on account of her ill-health. It was revealed that
she was carrying a pregnancy of 28 weeks 6 days, which

Rushikesh
                            3/3                  2 WP.10846.2026.odt

resulted in the registration of an FIR invoking the provisions
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO)
Act, 2012, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
(BNSS), 2023.

       The Petitioner, being a minor, has approached this Court
seeking termination of pregnancy by exercising her freedom
not to continue with the pregnancy, and, as she was already
carrying a pregnancy of about 29 weeks when the FIR was
filed, the Petitioner has approached this Court for protection of
her bodily autonomy and the rights available to her.

       Upon the report being received by us, with the clear-cut
opinion expressed from the Medical Board that medical
termination may be allowed with due risk, as the fetus may be
born alive and would require NICU support, we deem it
appropriate to grant the necessary permission to terminate
the pregnancy, taking into consideration the wish of the
Petitioner not to continue with the pregnancy.

       The Writ Petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

       We direct the Petitioner to be immediately admitted to
the hospital, and necessary steps be taken to implement the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 by taking all
necessary precautions and being ready with all the necessary
medical facilities to be made available to the Petitioner as well
as to the fetus.




(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)              (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)



Rushikesh