• Shreya Sinha


Updated: Aug 28, 2020

By- Rohit Arya, 4th Year B.A. L.LB Student at Amity Law School, Delhi


For the very first time in 1971, India legalized abortion. Prior to that, abortion was criminalized under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 calling it ‘causing of intentional miscarriage.’ However, with the enactment of The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, passed by Parliament in 1972, the medical termination no longer remained a criminalized act. The MTP Act, 1971 devised for abortion and legalized medical termination for up to 20 weeks of pregnancy and try to protect women's right to life through its provisions.

Where the length of the pregnancy has extended up to 12 weeks gestation period, on the counsel of one ‘Registered Medical Practitioner,’ pregnancy can be terminated.

Where the length pregnancy goes beyond 12 weeks but within 20 weeks of the gestation period, on the medical opinion of two such ‘Registered Medical Practitioner’ in good faith, pregnancy can be terminated only in the following grounds:-

Note: The pregnancy has to be terminated only by a Registered Medical Practitioner and if the pregnancy has been terminated by a non-Registered Medical Practitioner, the person is guilty of the offense punishable under the Code.

The MTP Act, 1971, allows the pregnant women to terminate her pregnancy beyond 20 weeks, if it is necessary to save her life, provided that the opinion of the medical practitioner is in good faith. The Court constitutes a Medical Board (an expert committee of medical professionals that produce a report which specifies whether pregnancy shall be terminated or not) in all the cases of terminating pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.


This (Amendment) Bill was presented in Lok Sabha on March 2, 2020, and was passed on 17, March 2020.

Proposed Features of the (Amendment) Bill

  1. The pregnancy up to 20 weeks can be terminated on the opinion of one Registered Medical Practitioner.

  2. The pregnancy between 20 weeks to 24 weeks can be terminated on the opinion of two Registered Medical Practitioners.

  3. The pregnancy up to 24 weeks can be terminated only for special categories of vulnerable women which include; rape victims, victims of incest, and other handicapped women or minors.

Note: However, the upper gestation limit will not apply in the cases of substantial fetal abnormalities, under section 3(2B).

  1. A gynecologist, a medical practitioner who specializes in women's reproductive health.

  2. A pediatrician, a medical practitioner who specializes in children and their diseases.

  3. A radiologist or sonologist, a medical practitioner who specializes in diagnosing, treating injuries and diseases using medical imaging radiology.

  4. Or any other number of members, as may be notified by the state government.

  5. Under the (Amendment) Bill, Each and every Registered Medical Practitioner has to keep confidential the identity and other information of a pregnant woman who has undergone an abortion, under section 4(5A)(1).

Note: The information and identity of the women can be disclosed to a person authorized by any law.

  • Any person who discloses the identity and other information to any other person not authorized by any law for the time being in force will be punishable, under section 4(5A)(2).


Law is of dynamic nature, which means with the change in society law has to be changed along with it. The existing Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, has not kept pace with the changing times, requirements, and developments in medical science. India is changing swiftly and the lives of the individuals are no longer similar to what was back then in the1970s which led to bringing an amendment to the 49 years old Law by the way of, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020.

For the undergoing abortion over 20 weeks, women have to face the cumbersome legal recourse. There exists a need to expand this gestational period beyond 20 weeks as it is a health issue and not a legal issue. Whereas, maximum of the pleas seek termination of pregnancy due to fetal anomalies that are detected late, or the pregnant individual falls under the case of sexual assault and rape; above all minors, where the medial practitioners are not ready to perform abortions, irrespective of gestational period.

The (Amendment) Bill will surely ease the burden on Courts, assured confidentiality to the identity of mothers (where social stigma relating to abortion can cause chaos in the life of aborting individual). It aims, to expand women’s access to safe and legal medical termination of pregnancy services on social and humanitarian grounds as abortion is one of the chief aspects of the reproductive health of women.

Questions related to the disability of the fetus, the reproductive rights of the woman, and disability rights. These issues are complex and cannot be addressed based on Medical Board’s findings whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, which turns out to be the decisive factor for the Court, rather than considering the woman’s reproductive rights. Therefore, Whether the Court’s decision shall solely be based on Medical Board Reports? If the reproductive rights of the woman are to be protected, Shouldn’t the right to terminate her pregnancy shall be her decision?

No doubt, the Medical Board may determine the physical well-being, but, The Board cannot ascertain the mental well-being and conditions of the woman. Thus, the right to terminate a pregnancy cannot be denied merely because the gestation period is beyond 20 weeks.


The High Court of Himachal Pradesh allowed the abortion of a 32 week developed fetus. The petitioner was 19 years old. The Court approached the Medical Board which was of the opinion that the development of the fetus in her womb would cause peril to the life of the petitioner along with the life of an infant. Also, vaginal delivery would be perilous.

The Court was of the view that there were major difficulties in the continuation of pregnancy, as reported by the medical board. Perhaps, it will wreak havoc in the Mental as well as the physical well-being of the petitioner and the abortion was the safest option.

Thus, the continuation of pregnancy jeopardizes the life of the petitioner and based on expert opinion that the fetus might not survive for long. The Court directions were given to the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy.

In the above case, the Court refused:-

  • The petitioner’s request for terminating pregnancy which was beyond 20 weeks, and

  • To amend the given Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

However, a notice was issued to the Central Government to amend the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 in force. The petition seeks for the composition of a committee that should frame suitable guiding principles for an exigent and harmless way of terminating pregnancy under cautious medical facilities and to set up a permanent mechanism for abortion beyond 20 weeks in the cases of exception. Chiefly rape survivors, women with disabilities, Victims of incest.