The Bombay High Court recently issued a notice to the Maharashtra government concerning a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the state’s requirement for judicial approval of medical terminations of pregnancies (MTP) beyond 24 weeks. This case, titled Dr. Rajeev Joshi v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., questions the legality and implications of a June 2024 Government Resolution (GR) mandating court intervention for such procedures.
Judicial Notice and Court Proceedings
A division bench, led by Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Mahendra Sethna, has requested the government to respond to the petition. The matter has been scheduled for a hearing on October 9. This legal challenge is spearheaded by the Medico Legal Society of India (MLSI) through pediatrician Dr. Rajeev Joshi.
Contentions of the Petition
The PIL argues that the 2024 GR’s requirement for judicial intervention in late-term abortions places undue financial and emotional burdens on women. The MLSI contends that this resolution improperly shifts responsibility from governmental and medical authorities to the judiciary.
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the termination of pregnancies is generally allowed up to 24 weeks under certain conditions. However, procedures beyond this period are highly restricted, necessitating court approval as per the contested GR.
Clinical and Ethical Concerns
The petition highlights several clinical and ethical issues related to late-term abortions. One significant concern is that such procedures often result in premature live births, which require specialized neonatal intensive care. The plea points out the critical shortage of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) beds in India, complicating care for these vulnerable infants.
More Read
Additionally, the petition references a First Information Report (FIR) filed against a gynecologist in Satara for performing a court-ordered abortion, illustrating the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by medical professionals. This situation leaves doctors in a precarious position between legal directives, ethical obligations, and potential criminal liability.
Relief Sought
The PIL seeks to annul the court intervention requirement specified in the 2024 GR for late-term abortions. It also calls for the establishment of a clear standard operating procedure (SOP) to manage late-term pregnancies. Furthermore, it requests that the state assume financial responsibility for neonatal care in cases where a child is born alive following a court-approved procedure.
Dr. Rajeev Joshi represented himself in the proceedings, while government pleaders Neha S. Bhide, O.A. Chandurkar, and M.M. Pabale appeared on behalf of the state.
