permission for the abortion. in november 2017, a woman approached the bombay high court for permission to terminate her pregnancy in 26th week of gestation on grounds of skeletal and neurological abnormalities. further to the opinion of the medical board constituted by the court, she was granted permission to terminate her pregnancy due to fetal abnormalities incompatible with life. foetuses of two women, in their 29th and 30th week of pregnancy were both diagnosed with arnold chiari type ii syndrome. based on the report of jj hospital in mumbai, the supreme court in october 2017 held that both foetuses were identical and that the continuation of pregnancy would harm both, thereby permitting the termination of pregnancy for both women. in october 2017, a 16-year-old rape survivor's father approached the bombay high court, seeking permission for the termination of his daughter's pregnancy in 27th week of gestation. the high court denied the request. the decision was made following a report presented by a panel of doctors who examined her, which suggested that an abortion at this stage would pose potential risks to her health. in another incident in october 2017, a minor rape victim in her 23rd week of pregnancy had approached the jharkhand high court for permission to abort her foetus. while the medical board set up to examine the matter observed that it would be dangerous to abort at this stage, the board took it up as a challenge. the court permitted the termination of pregnancy, and directed the government to make arrangements for the stay of the victim's parents. in october 2017, a 16-year-old's father had approached the punjab and haryana high court to seek permission for the termination of her 26-week pregnancy that resulted from rape. the court, following the report of the medical board that stated the abortion can be undertaken with the understanding that it involves risks, allowed the abortion and directed the board to carry out the necessary procedures. the mother of a 19-year-old girl with mild to moderate intellectual disability had approached the high court of himachal pradesh in october 2017 for permission to terminate the girl's 32-week pregnancy. the medical board constituted by the high court observed that if the pregnancy were continued, the foetus would have severe cognitive and motor impairments even after surgery. the court therefore granted permission for the termination of the pregnancy. in september 2017, the mother of a 13-year-old rape survivor moved the apex court for permission to terminate her 32-week pregnancy. the supreme court permitted the abortion citing that it was a result of sexual abuse and the victim did not want to carry on with it, despite opposition from the centre that argued that the pregnancy was too advanced. in september 2017, a woman in her 31st week of pregnancy sought permission to terminate her pregnancy as both kidneys of the foetus were found to be not functioning. noting that the continuation of pregnancy will cause more mental anguish to her, the supreme court granted her permission. a 17-year rape victim approached the karnataka high court in september 2017 seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy that had exceeded 20 weeks, arguing that she will suffer mentally if she had to deliver her baby at such a young age. the court, however, rejected the plea following the report of the medical board that suggested that termination of the pregnancy would not be good for the girl and the foetus. in august 2017, a 20-year-old woman from pune approached the supreme court, seeking permission to abort her 24-week foetus that was diagnosed as having no skull. after the medical board reported that there was no treatment possible for the condition, the supreme court granted permission for the termination of the pregnancy. a 10-year-old girl in chandigarh was found to be 26-weeks pregnant by local doctors, after which the district court was approached to allow her to undergo an abortion. the girl, who was raped several times by her maternal uncle, was denied permission by the court in july 2017 to undergo abortion, after it was later revealed in another examination that the foetus was 32-weeks old. in july 2017, the 24-week foetus of a 21-year-old woman from mumbai was diagnosed with mental abnormalities. following this, renowned gynaecologist dr. nikhil datar helped the husband of the woman file a petition in the supreme court, to allow her to undergo an abortion. the supreme court granted the permission. in july 2017, a 19-year-old rape survivor approached the gujarat high court seeking permission to terminate her 26-week pregnancy. while the girl pled that she was "totally innocent and will have to face punishment for her entire life for the crime committed by someone else", the plea was rejected by the high court which argued that "the risk from abortion was higher than delivery at term". in june 2017, a kolkata-based woman filed a petition in the supreme court, challenging section 3 of the mtp act which denies permission to abort the foetus beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy. the woman discovered that her foetus had congenital defect when she was 23 weeks pregnant, and had crossed the 20-week benchmark within which it is legal to terminate a pregnancy. the supreme court in response, appointed a medical board of seven senior doctors in kolkata, directed it to examine her. the apex court has called for a need to amend the mtp act, to make it more "meaningful". in may 2017, a medical board of eight doctors referred the case of a 10-year-old pregnant girl who was raped by her stepfather, to the city court in haryana. the board was unsure of the gestation, and concluded that it could be between 18 and 22 weeks. the city court advised the board to choose one of two ways – either to go ahead with the abortion by considering it to be below 18 weeks, or "wait for the pregnancy to complete its full term if they feel the unborn child has surpassed the age cap". following this, the board decided to go ahead with the abortion. in may 2017, a 16-year-old rape survivor and her father approached the gujarat high court seeking permission to abort her foetus that had grown beyond 20 weeks. the court allowed the teen to undergo abortion, citing that the abortion was not likely to endanger the life of the girl based on the medical opinion of a doctor. in may 2017, an hiv-positive destitute rape victim approached the patna high court with a plea to terminate her pregnancy. after the high court turned down the plea, saying that "it was a compelling responsibility of the state to keep the child alive", the supreme court was approached. the apex court then granted permission to abort the now 26-week-old foetus, directing an aiims medical board to examine her. it stated that "a woman, who has already become a destitute, being sexually assaulted and suffering from a serious ailment, should not go through further suffering. the quintessential purpose of life is the dignity of life and all efforts are to be made to sustain it." in april 2017, the mother of a 16-year-old rape victim in madhya pradesh approached the indore bench of the high court seeking permission for the termination of her daughter's 33-week pregnancy. the plea was rejected by the bench, arguing that the "foetus was grown and an abortion was unjustified". in march 2017, a 28-year-old woman from mumbai approached the supreme court to seek permission to terminate her 27-week pregnancy after discovering that the foetus had arnold chiari type ii syndrome – a condition similar to the one she saw her brother grow up with. the supreme court denied her permission for an abortion, ruling that there are chances the baby may be born alive. in february 2017, a 37-year-old woman in her 27th week of pregnancy approached the supreme court for permission to abort her foetus that was found to have down syndrome. after the medical board appointed by the court advised against an abortion, the apex court denied her permission to terminate the pregnancy, citing that the baby could be "born alive" if the pregnancy was allowed to continue, while admitting that it was "very sad for a mother to bring up a mentally retarded child". the foetus was detected with a rare abnormality called the arnold-chiari malformation, where the brain and spinal cord connect. in january 2017, a 22-year-old woman sought permission from the supreme court to abort her 24-week foetus on medical grounds. further to the medical board's report which revealed that the foetus was without scalp with bleak chances of survival, posing a threat to the life of the woman, the apex court granted her permission to undergo abortion. in july 2016, a 26-year-old rape victim approached the supreme court seeking permission to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, as the foetus had anencephaly, a condition whereby most part of the brain, scull and scalp is missing. the medical board, after having examined her on the directions of the supreme court, declared that the woman's life was in danger. the apex court then granted her permission to abort the foetus. in february 2016, an 18-year-old rape victim sought permission from the gujarat high court to abort her 24-week foetus after having unsuccessfully attempted suicide by consuming acid. the panel of doctors submitted their report, following which, the high court granted permission, citing that the continuation of the pregnancy "may result in a grave injury to her mental health". in the samar ghosh v. jaya ghosh case of march 2011, the supreme court examined whether a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy without her husband's knowledge or consent would amount to mental cruelty. the court in this case ruled that "if the wife undergoes vasectomy (sic) or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such as act may lead to mental cruelty". in november 2011, in the dr. mangla dogra & others v. anil kumar malhotra & others case dealing with the issue of whether a husband has a right to provide consent for abortion, the high court of punjab and haryana stated that "the mtp act requires consent from just one person: the woman undergoing a medical termination of pregnancy. a husband cannot force his wife to continue a pregnancy". in september 2009, in the krupa prolifers v. state of kerala case, the kerala high court, while addressing the issue of regulating emergency contraception under the mtp act, ruled that "emergency contraception does not cause termination of pregnancy and cannot be regulated by the mtp act". in august 2009, the supreme court addressed the suchitra srivastava & another v. chandigarh administration case on the issue of whether the state can consent to a termination as a guardian for a "mentally ill" woman who was raped in her state-run facility. the court ruled that the facts must be examined in such a case, and where the woman is "not a minor and has a 'mild' mental illness, the court has to ensure her reproductive rights, including the right to continue a pregnancy". in july 2008, a woman approached the bombay high court seeking permission to abort her 26-week-old foetus that was diagnosed with congenital heart defect. the high court turned down the plea, arguing that "if born, the foetus would not suffer from any serious handicap". september 2022 supreme court ruling a three-judge bench of supreme court of india in civil appeal no. 5802 of 2022 made some findings on 29th september 2022. the judgement adds emphasis on to women's right to bodily autonomy, sexual and reproductive choices, extended equal benefit of law to unmarried women and reduced number of hurdles like third party consent for adult women. the judgement defined "woman" as all persons who require access to safe abortion, along with cisgender women, thus including transpersons and other gender-diverse persons. the court noted that medical practitioners commonly insist that abortion-seekers comply with extra-legal conditions, such as obtaining the consent of the abortion seeker's family, producing documentary proofs, or judicial authorisation, and that, if such conditions are not met, they frequently deny the abortion service. it found this practice "lamentable". the court remarked that medical practitioners should refrain from imposing such requirements and that only the woman's