Sheetal Shankar Salvi v. Union of India
In short. The case involves a writ petition filed by Sheetal Shankar Salvi seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy at 27 weeks due to severe fetal anomalies. The Supreme Court of India, after reviewing a medical board's report, denied the request, stating that there was no immediate danger to the mother's life and that the fetus's potential survival, despite severe physical anomalies, did not warrant termination based solely on the mother's anxiety about the pregnancy outcome.
Facts
- Petitioner: Sheetal Shankar Salvi, 27 weeks pregnant.
- Medical Condition: The fetus was diagnosed with severe anomalies, including Arnold-Chiari malformation Type 2, hydrocephalus, lumbosacral meningocele, and spina bifida with tethered cord.
- Medical Board Examination: The Supreme Court ordered an examination by a Medical Board, which concluded that while the fetus had severe anomalies, the mother's health was stable, and there was no medical risk in continuing the pregnancy.
- Procedural History: The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, and the Court issued a notice to the respondents while directing a medical examination.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
- The petitioner argued for the right to terminate her pregnancy due to the severe fetal anomalies and the anxiety regarding the potential quality of life for the child.
- Critique: The Court found that the anxiety of the mother was not a sufficient legal ground for termination, especially since the medical board did not recommend termination on medical grounds.
Respondent Arguments
- The respondents, represented by the Medical Board's findings, argued against the termination, stating that the mother's health was not at risk and that the fetus's condition did not justify the procedure.
- Critique: The Court upheld the respondents' position, emphasizing the medical board's conclusion that termination was not warranted based on the medical assessment.
Precedents considered
The judgment did not explicitly cite prior case law but relied on established legal principles regarding medical termination of pregnancy, particularly the necessity of a medical risk to the mother or severe fetal anomalies justifying termination.
Legal principles
- Article 32 of the Constitution: Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act: The Court referenced the necessity for medical grounds for termination, which were not met in this case.
- Assessment of Fetal Anomalies: The Court considered the severity of fetal conditions and the implications for postnatal quality of life.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The Court reasoned that the absence of immediate danger to the mother's life and the potential for the fetus to survive, albeit with severe disabilities, did not justify the termination of pregnancy. The Court emphasized the importance of medical recommendations and the need for a substantial medical basis for such a decision.
Outcome
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, denying the request for medical termination of the pregnancy. The Court did not provide specific instructions for an appeal process, as the decision was final.
Conclusion
This judgment underscores the complexities involved in cases of medical termination of pregnancy, particularly when fetal anomalies are present. It highlights the Court's reliance on medical assessments and the legal standards governing such decisions, reinforcing the notion that maternal anxiety alone is insufficient for termination without medical justification.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.