Sheetal Shankar Salvi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- S. A. Bobde
- L. Nageswara Rao
- Judgment Date
- 2017-03-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Court declined to grant the prayer for medical termination. It held that there was no danger to the mother's life, the fetus had severe anomalies with possible, albeit uncertain, survivability, and the Medical Board did not advise termination on medical grounds. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Sheetal Shankar Salvi
- Anr.
Respondents
- Union of India
- Ors.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Sneha Mukherjee
- • Satya Mitra
Counsels for Respondents
- • Ranjit Kumar
- • Sadhana Sandhu
- • G. S. Makker
- • Nishant R. Katneshwarker
- • Arpit Rai
Case Synopsis & Summary
Sheetal Shankar Salvi, at 27 weeks pregnant, petitioned under Article 32 of the Constitution for directions to permit medical termination of her pregnancy. The fetus had been diagnosed with Arnold-Chiari malformation Type 2 with severe hydrocephalus, lumbosacral myelocele, and tethered cord, conditions that, according to a medical board, would severely curtail postnatal life and entail substantial physical and mental morbidity. A seven-member Medical Board reviewed the case and reported that the mother's physical condition is normal with no medical risk to continuation or termination of the pregnancy, but she is anxious about the outcome. The board observed that, if terminated at 27 weeks, the baby might be born alive and survive for a variable period, but it could not determine the exact survivability. It also stated that it did not advise termination on medical grounds. On these findings, the Court noted the absence of danger to the mother's life and the likelihood that the child would be born with substantial disability, and concluded it would be inappropriate to grant the prayer, while acknowledging that the fetus would face severe impairment. The Court emphasized that it could not direct termination in the circumstances and dismissed the writ petition. The order details the Medical Board's composition and the procedural steps taken.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- In the interests of justice
- Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 (as a constitutional principle mentioned in context)
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Applicants contended that continuing a pregnancy with a severely anomalous fetus would impose avoidable suffering on the child and mother. They rely on the right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 to argue reproductive autonomy in extreme circumstances, especially when the fetus has life-limiting anomalies. The Medical Board's report indicates no immediate maternal risk but does not negate the potential lifelong suffering of the child. The petitioners argued that the mother's anxiety and the probability that the baby may be born alive and survive, albeit briefly, justify termination in the interests of justice. They urged the Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 to permit termination to prevent suffering and to respect the mother's choice. They stressed the need for compassionate and humane consideration in late gestation when prognosis is adverse. They contend that medical grounds alone may not be determinative if the anticipated quality of life is dismally poor, and the Court should weigh the constitutional rights at stake against fetal interests. The applicants ask for a remedy that aligns with medical ethics, maternal autonomy, and dignity in life, given the child's severe condition.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents submitted that there is no danger to the mother's life, and the Medical Board did not recommend termination on medical grounds; Article 21 and the obligation to protect life require caution in depriving the unborn child of life, especially when life at birth may be possible though with disability. They argued that the Board's assessment that the fetus would suffer severe impairment does not by itself justify termination in late gestation, particularly where the baby could be viable. They contend that the State has a duty to protect life and that the Court should not create a broad precedent permitting late-term abortions where prognosis is uncertain. They also highlighted that the Board could not determine survivability; given the uncertainties, policy and judicial restraint are warranted, and the prayer for termination should be declined. The respondents emphasized the need to respect medical judgment and avoid interference in clinical decision-making absent clear risk to maternal life.
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Sheetal Shankar Salvi and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.