The Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Maharashtra government on a public interest litigation challenging the June 2024 Government Resolution that mandates direct court intervention for medical termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks of gestation. The matter, titled Dr Rajeev Joshi v State of Maharashtra & Ors, was brought before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait M Sethna, which has directed the State to file its response and listed the case for hearing on October 9, 2026.
The petition, filed by the Medico Legal Society of India through pediatrician Dr Rajeev Joshi, contests the procedural requirement introduced under the June 2024 Government Resolution, which obliges women seeking termination of pregnancy after 24 weeks to obtain a court order. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, termination is permitted up to 24 weeks subject to fulfillment of prescribed conditions. Beyond this limit, the Act allows termination only in cases of substantial risk to the life of the pregnant woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there is a substantial risk of serious handicap in the child if born.
The petitioner argues that the government resolution improperly shifts administrative and clinical responsibilities to the judiciary by requiring court involvement in all late-term cases, thereby imposing avoidable financial, procedural, and emotional burdens on pregnant women. The plea contends that such a mandate forces victims into prolonged litigation at a time when timely medical intervention is often critical, particularly in cases involving fetal anomalies or threats to maternal health.
Further, the Medico Legal Society of India has highlighted the clinical and ethical dilemmas associated with late-term abortions, noting that procedures conducted beyond 24 weeks frequently result in live premature births. The petition points out that India faces a critical shortage of Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) beds, creating significant challenges in managing infants born alive following such interventions. The absence of adequate neonatal care infrastructure, the petition states, exacerbates risks for both infants and medical practitioners.
The plea also underscores the legal vulnerability of healthcare providers, citing the example of an FIR registered against a gynaecologist in Satara for performing a court-ordered abortion. According to the petition, medical professionals are caught between conflicting obligations—judicial directives, ethical duties to patients, and the threat of criminal prosecution under penal provisions related to causing miscarriage or endangering life. This predicament, the petition argues, undermines clinical autonomy and discourages timely medical intervention.
In relief, the petition seeks the quashing of the court intervention clause in the June 2024 Government Resolution as it applies to late-term abortions. Additionally, it requests the formulation of a clear standard operating procedure for managing pregnancies beyond 24 weeks, including guidelines for medical practitioners. The plea further directs that the State should bear the financial costs of intensive neonatal care for any child born alive during a court-authorized termination procedure, arguing that the State, as the entity mandating judicial oversight, must assume responsibility for consequent outcomes.
Dr Rajeev Joshi appeared in person during the preliminary hearing. The State was represented by government pleaders Neha S Bhide, OA Chandurkar, and MM Pabale. The bench, after hearing initial submissions, deemed it necessary to seek the State’s formal response before proceeding further on the merits of the challenge.
The notice issued by the court marks the first formal judicial step in reviewing the legality and operational impact of the State’s directive on access to late-term abortion services. The matter remains pending for substantive hearing on October 9, 2026, when both parties are expected to present detailed arguments on the constitutional and statutory validity of the challenged provision.