
The Madras High Court on 15 October allowed termination of a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks after scans revealed significant foetal abnormalities, quashing a medical board's refusal. Justice P T Asha observed that the mother has the right to decide whether to bring such a child into the world, particularly when the child is not going to lead a normal life. The scan showed mild foetal ventriculomegaly, with an MRI revealing agenesis of the corpus callosum and dilated lateral ventricles, carrying risks of developmental difficulties including epilepsy and intellectual disability.

In a separate case, the Allahabad High Court has sought the prescribed consent form signed by the guardian of a 13-year-old rape survivor before a C-section was performed despite the court's direction for medical termination of pregnancy. A division bench comprising Justices Ajit Kumar and Garima Prashad directed the state to place the details before it on 26 October. Dr Amrita Chaurasia of Motilal Nehru Medical College submitted an affidavit stating the procedure was undertaken keeping the minor's health paramount, but the court expressed surprise over the absence of the signed declaration form. An inquiry report exonerated doctors of negligence, but the court sought clarification on consent.
Update, 25 October 2026: LawChakra has now reported the Madras High Court ruling with additional detail, including the full MRI findings of agenesis of the corpus callosum and dilated ventricles, and the medical board's recommendation for genetic testing. This outlet confirms the earlier reports and adds that the court set aside the Form D order of 13 October passed by the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Egmore.
LawChakra and Madhyamam give near-identical straight reports on the Madras High Court ruling, both foregrounding the mother's right to decide and the medical board's refusal on non-lethal grounds. The Allahabad High Court case is covered by Hindustan Times and Times of India, both neutral-report, with HT leading on the missing consent form and Times of India noting the court had earlier found doctors 'prima facie guilty of deliberate negligence' before the inquiry report exonerated them. The two outlets agree on facts but differ slightly in emphasis: HT keeps focus on the consent gap, while Times of India gives more space to the procedural sequence. The Madras case coverage is uniform, the Allahabad case shows the court moving from suspicion of negligence to seeking consent clarification. Both courts return on 26 October.
Coverage: 4 sources, 4 neutral
Sources (4): madhyamamonline.com (neutral report), hindustantimes.com (neutral report), timesofindia.indiatimes.com (neutral report), lawchakra.in (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 4 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.