Permission for a late pregnancy termination does not end the hospital’s and the State’s duty to a child who is born alive, the Bombay High Court has made clear. It allowed a minor sexual-assault survivor to end a pregnancy of about 28 weeks, relying on Supreme Court precedent on reproductive autonomy, and directed that any live-born child receive medical care, with the State taking responsibility if the survivor chooses adoption through the legal process.
Mumbai: Allowing a minor’s petition for medical pregnancy termination, the Bombay High Court on November 9, 2026 gave weight to her clearly stated wish not to continue the pregnancy and to the Medical Board’s view of the risk to her psychological health [XYZ and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Others].
A vacation bench of Justices Advait M. Sethna and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale delivered a final judgment allowing the writ petition. Besides permitting termination, it spelled out what the hospital and the State must do if the procedure results in a live birth.
What the Court ordered
The minor may undergo termination at Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals, subject to the required medical protocol. The Court directed post-delivery care for her and neonatal care for the baby if required.
Should she wish to give the child for adoption after delivery, the State and its agencies must assume responsibility and take steps for rehabilitation, including foster care or adoption through the legal process. The bench clarified that its observations must not bind the petitioners to a particular choice and that the survivor’s wishes should be respected at the appropriate stage.
Medical Board: no lethal anomaly, but a risk of live birth
The Court had asked the Medical Board at Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals to examine the minor. Its November 9 report recorded a pregnancy of 28 weeks with no lethal congenital anomaly. The Board said that allowing termination beyond 24 weeks in these circumstances was outside its own remit, but that the procedure could be performed if the High Court so directed, given the possibility of grave and irreparable psychological harm to the survivor.
The report also cautioned that the foetus might be born alive and need neonatal intensive care, with significant risks of illness and death. The Court discussed those risks with the minor and her parents in chambers. According to the judgment, she remained unequivocal that she did not want to continue the pregnancy.
Counsel for the petitioners invoked dignity, reproductive freedom and Article 21, arguing that continuing the pregnancy would gravely affect the minor’s physical and emotional health. The State’s counsel relied on the Medical Board’s report and asked the Court to pass an appropriate order after considering it.
Reproductive autonomy and the governing precedent
The bench looked at the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and its rules, including the provisions on substantial foetal abnormalities and the categories eligible for termination up to 24 weeks. It expressly recognised that this pregnancy had advanced beyond that period.
In paragraphs 24–26, the bench applied the Supreme Court’s February 6, 2026 decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Others, Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2026. As explained in the High Court judgment, that decision emphasised maternal rights, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy while permitting termination of a pregnancy conceived when the woman was a minor.
The High Court treated that precedent as directly applicable to the facts before it. Its decision rested on the survivor’s circumstances, her wishes and the medical evidence; it did not announce an unrestricted entitlement to termination beyond the statutory time limits.
ALSO READ: J&K High Court Says Doctors Shirk MTP Act Duties, Leaving Pregnant Women At God’s Mercy
Why a live-born child must not be neglected
On the duty of care, the bench relied on its coordinate bench’s April 3, 2019 decision in XYZ v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 10835 of 2018. It explained that when a child is born alive after court-permitted termination, the medical practitioner and hospital must provide the best available treatment in the circumstances.
In paragraphs 29–32, the Court stressed that such a child must not be neglected. It referred to a separate case in which a newborn allegedly went untreated for about 11 hours and subsequently died, saying that a recurrence must be prevented.
The petition was allowed and the rule made absolute. The judgment decides the request for pregnancy termination; it does not decide criminal guilt in the underlying allegation of sexual assault.
Case title: XYZ and Another v. The State of Maharashtra and Others
Case number: Writ Petition No. 15243 of 2026
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Vacation Court
Bench: Justices Advait M. Sethna and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Judgment date: November 9, 2026
Neutral citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45507-DB
Outcome: Petition allowed; termination permitted with medical safeguards and directions concerning care after delivery.
The linked copy of the official judgment has been editorially redacted to remove identifying factual background in paragraphs 5–9 and protect the minor. The judicial reasoning and operative directions are retained.
