Case Name: BT Pavithra Kumari v. The Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.
Writ Petition No: WP No. 42910 of 2026
Date: 15th October 2026
Court: High Court of Madras
Quorum: Hon’ble Ms Justice P.T. Asha
FACTS
BT Pavithra Kumari, the petitioner, who already had a child in 2024, got pregnant for the second time in early 2026. Whereas her early scans in the first trimester were normal, her ultrasound at nearly 28 weeks into the pregnancy raised a red flag of “Mild fetal ventriculomegaly.” An extended neurosonography was conducted on October 5, 2026, followed by a Fetal MRI on October 6, 2026, revealing serious fetal abnormalities in the form of agenesis of the corpus callosum and bilateral moderate ventriculomegaly (colpocephaly). These conditions have a higher chance of various complications like difficulties with speech, learning disabilities, cognitive issues, seizures, and intellectual disability. To avoid a child suffering and indignity, the petitioner sought medical termination of the pregnancy on October 13, 2026. However, the Medical Board (3rd respondent) rejected the request in its decision on Form D of October 13, 2026, on the argument that the condition was “non-lethal” and insisted the petitioner first undergo genetic testing.
LEGAL ISSUES
- The question arises whether a pregnancy can be brought to an end when the gestation period is more than 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in circumstances when relevant fetal anomalies have been detected even though the Medical Board has deemed such a situation to be non-lethal.
- The question shall arise about whether the denial of the application for abortion constitutes a violation of the fundamental right of a woman to reproductive and physical autonomy enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- The interpretations made in the MTP Act,1971: Section3(2B)(legislation allowing termination after 24 weeks where there is an opinion formed by the Medical Board conducting tests that there are grave foetal defects in the embryo) and Section3(2D)(with respect to the constitution of the Medical Board).
- The regulations framed under the MTP Rules of 2003: Rule 3A(a)(i)(the power given to the Medical Board that allows them to approve termination after the 24-week mark in case the foetus might be suffering from serious mental or physical problems).
- Provisions made in the Constitution of India: Article 21(the right to life and liberty, and includes the right to reproduction as well).
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – The petitioner claimed that the MRI results as well as results from scanning tests were sufficient proof that indicated that the fetus had serious physical defects that will cause lifelong and serious physical and mental disabilities to the child in future. The petitioner claimed that conducting a genetic test would simply establish the cause and would not change the prognosis regarding development; therefore, the refusal of the Medical Board was arbitrary. Furthermore, she claimed that she has the right to make decisions regarding her body, and forcing her to continue with the pregnancy would result in the child enduring shame and ridicule throughout his life.
RESPONDENT – The respondents asserted that corpus callosal agenesis is a heterogeneous and non-lethal diagnosis based on the proper assessment by the Medical Board. As a result, the respondents insisted that termination past the legal limit cannot be sanctioned without additional genetic testing that could provide more information about the condition’s origins.
ANALYSIS
The Court examined the legal provisions of the MTP Act, with a particular concern expressing Section 3(2B) and Rule 3A, which enable termination of the pregnancy even after 24 weeks if there are gross fetal malformations which endanger the child. The ruling depends heavily on the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding reproductive autonomy as an inalienable right under Article 21, citing Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, 2009 (9) SCC 1, to express that the right to reproductive choices prevails over everything. It also relies on X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC Online SC 1321, which states that continuing an unwanted pregnancy against a woman’s will is a violation of her bodily autonomy.
The Court also relied on the case A v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 (6) SCC 327 to conclude that delays on the part of Medical Boards should not hamper the rights of the pregnant individual and that priority should be given to the reproductive autonomy of the mother. Further, the Court cited the case of X v. GNCTD, 2022 SCC Online Del 4274 concerning the meaning of “substantial foetal abnormalities”, which allows the court to allow the termination of the pregnancy even in the ninth month for such cases. Based on these findings, the Court concluded that there were substantial abnormalities as shown in the scan report. The Court therefore concluded that the choice of the mother was crucial as it helped in avoiding a situation where the child leads life without dignity and means of sustenance.
JUDGEMENT
The writ petition was accepted by the High Court of Justice, thereby invalidating the Medical Board’s decision in Form D dated October 13, 2026. The High Court directed that the respondents immediately terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner in accordance with the medical records and in consultation with a registered medical practitioner.
CONCLUSION
The Madras High Court reiterated the pre-eminence of a female’s autonomy over her body and reproductive rights embodied under Article 21, stating that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act allows pregnancy termination after the span of 24 weeks on account of grave fetal anomalies even if they do not endanger life immediately.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
Read the Judgment copy below : BT Pavithra Kumari v The Secretary and Others
