Kerala High Court
Syeda Shazia Talath vs Union Of India, Rep. By Its Secretary on 3 July, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.22789 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 SYEDA SHAZIA TALATH
AGED 31 YEARS
W/O. JIBIN THOMAS, FLAT NO : 5A, 5TH FLOOR,
SAVITHA RD, ARAKKAKADAVU, VENNALA, ERNAKULAM.,
PIN - 682028
2 JIBIN THOMAS
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO : 5A, 5TH
FLOOR, SAVITHA RD, ARAKKAKADAVU, VENNALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
BY ADVS.
SHRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
SRI.MANU SRINATH
SHRI.LIJO JOHN THAMPY
SMT.NIVEDITA MUCHILOTE
SHRI.RIYAS M.B.
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
2
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN THE WRIT PETITION:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT ,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
3 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THETHE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT,
GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, HMT ROAD, HMT COLONY,
NORTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683503
5 DR. SHEMINI SALEEM
CONSULTANT, DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS &
GYNAECOLOGY, SUNRISE HOSPITAL, SEAPORT-AIRPORT
ROAD, KAKKANAD, KOCHI, PIN - 682030
OTHER PRESENT:
SHRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS (SR.G.P)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J.
Appellant-petitioner had approached this Court with
the following reliefs:
i)To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate form
of writ directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 to
convene a Medical Board, as contemplated under the
relevant Government Orders/Circulars, to evaluate the
fetal parameters relating to the pregnancy of the
Petitioner No.1 and to express an opinion as to whether
her pregnancy is liable to be medically terminated or
not;
ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate form
of writ permitting/directing Respondent No.5 or any
other registered medical practitioner to medically
terminate the pregnancy of the Petitioner No. 1, in the
interest of justice.
iii) Such other matters that the Petitioners may pray for
and which this Honourable Court may deem it fit and
proper to grant.
2. The aforementioned relief, on the basis of the
pleadings and as well as the reply of the other side, came up
for consideration before the Single Bench of this Court and
the Single Bench vide order dated 20.6.2025 directed the
District Medical Officer, Ernakulam to assess the following
points.
(i) Whether continuance of the 1st petitioner's
pregnancy would involve risk to her life or grave injury
to her physical or mental health.
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
(ii) Whether there is a substantial risk that if the child
was born, it would suffer from such physical or mental
abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped and if so,
the nature of abnormalities and
(iii) Whether, having regard to the advanced stage of
pregnancy, there is any danger (other than usual
danger which arises even in spontaneous delivery at
the end of full term) if the pregnant mother is
permitted to terminate her pregnancy.
3. The reports Exts.P3 and P4 with the Medical
Board, the court in paragraph 12 of the judgment under
challenge found that there exists a considerable reason that
the baby will be born with Down's syndrome if born alive
and serious cardiac abnormalities which may require
surgery and follow up treatment and accordingly disposed of
the writ petition by issuing following directions:
1.The fourth respondent shall take immediate
measures for constituting a Medical Team to
conduct the termination of the petitioner's
pregnancy, on production of a copy of this
judgment.
2. The Medical Team shall, in their discretion and
best judgment, adopt the best procedure
recommended in the medical science to terminate
the pregnancy and save the life of the 1st
petitioner.
3. The petitioner shall file an undertaking
authorising the fourth respondent to terminate the
pregnancy at their risk and costs.
4. If the foetus is born alive, the hospital shall
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
render all the necessary assistance, including
incubation and treatment at any super-specialty, to
ensure that the foetus survives. The baby shall be
offered the best medical treatment, and the
petitioners shall take full responsibility and bear
the expenses for the baby.
5. Before conducting the termination of the
pregnancy, the Medical Board shall reconfirm the
fetal abnormalities by performing a final scan.
6. The party shall appear before the
Superintendent of Medical College Hospital,
Kalamassery on 26.06.2025.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that all the directions except direction
No.4 is the matter of concern, as it has taken away the relief,
without considering the following procedure laid down in
Annexure 4 notification dated 6.8.2018.
V.c Stopping foetal heart beat:
In cases of pregnancy over 24 weeks of gestation,
an ultrasound gulded procedure may be required
so that foetus is not expelled/delivered alive. This
is a skilled procedure and must be performed by
an experienced Obstetrician or Foetal Medicine
expert only. The Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists (RCOG) recommends 2-3 ml of
strong (15%) potassium chloride (KCI) injection in
the foetal heart prior to termination. A repeat
injection may be required if asystole has not
occurred after 30-60 seconds. Asystole should be
observed for at least two minutes and foetal
demise should be confirmed by ultrasound scan
after 30-60 minutes.
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
This procedure whenever contemplated need be
clearly mentioned in the recommendation or
report of the Board to Hon'ble Court.
5. Considering this procedure, another co-ordinate
bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.3.2025 in W.A
No.477 of 2025 had disposed of the writ petition in the
following manner:
(1)The Medical Board of Kalamassery Medical College
shall examine Annexure 1, the Medical Board report
dated 5.3.2025, and determine whether a substantial
foetal abnormality exists.
(2) If such an abnormality is found, a certificate shall be
issued. On the basis of such certificate, the appellant is
permitted to approach any hospital of her choice for
iatrogenic foetal demise.
(3) There shall be a direction to the Superintendent of
the above Medical College to constitute a Medical Board
either today or by tomorrow.
6. The matter was again taken up by the bench and
the following order was passed.
We have already passed a judgment on 12.03.2025.
The petitioner would submit that thereafter, the
Medical Board constituted by the Government
Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam expressed an
opinion that "neurological status of the foetus
cannot be commented on antenatally and can be
completely determined only after birth of the baby."
2. The appellant wants to have an assessment from
Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and Research
Center, Edappally, Kochi. If that be so, we permit
the Medical Board of Amrita Institute of Medical
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
Sciences and Research Center to assess whether the
foetus has any substantial abnormality as defined
under Section 3(2)-B of the Medical termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971 which is reproduced herewith;
"(2-B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to
the length of the pregnancy shall not apply to the
termination of pregnancy by the medical
practitioner where such termination is necessitated
by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal
abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board."
3. If the Medical Board finds any such substantial
foetal abnormalities, we permit the appellant to
terminate the pregnancy using any scientific
method. This order is passed based on a submission
made by the counsel for the appellant today
morning.
7. Considering the predicament of the appellant-
petitioner, we had on 2.7.2025 issued the notice to the
counsel representing the Union of India as well as the State.
8. Mr.T.K Vipindas, learned Senior Government
Pleader submitted that the Kalamassery Medical College
does not have the facility of following the procedure as per
the notification, ibid but submits that only the Amrita
Medical College, Edapppaly would have the facility and the
directions contained in the subsequent order in the writ
appeal ie., 12.3.2025 can also be passed in the instant case
for the purpose of vindication of the grievance of the
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
petitioner, particularly in view of the medical reports Exts.P3
and P4.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
and appraised the paper book.
10. The directions contained in the order dated
12.3.2025 and subsequent order dated 14.3.2025 if read
cumulative, we are of the view that the direction of the
learned Single Bench is required to be modified and the
present writ appeal is disposed of with the following
directions:
(1) The appellant would have an assessment from
the Amrita Institute Medical Sciences and Research Center,
Edapally, Kochi
(2) The permission is granted to the Medical Board
to assess whether the foetal has any substantial
abnormalities as defined under Section 3(2)-B of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
(3) In case it finds that there are substantial
abnormalities in the foetal, liberty is granted to the appellant
to terminate the pregnancy using the scientific methods.
The aforementioned order is passed on the basis of
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant as
well.
Writ appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE
2025:KER:48592
WA NO. 1611 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.03.2025 IN WP(C) NO. 8514 OF 2025
OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.03.2025 IN WA NO. 477 OF 2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.03.2025 IN W.A. NO. 477 OF 2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
GUIDELINES MOHFW D.O NO. M.
12015/58/2017- MCH DATED 14.08.2017
ALONG WITH THE DIRECTIVE DATED
06.08.2018 AND THE GUIDANCE NOTE
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNION OF
INDIA
