The Bombay High Court has clarified that a medical practitioner’s claim of acting in good faith to save a mother’s life during a termination beyond 20 weeks cannot be accepted at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC. The Court emphasized that such claims involve factual disputes requiring full trial, not preliminary scrutiny.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Dr. Omprakash Kingaonkar, a 71-year-old gynecologist with over 30 years of service, was chargesheeted for allegedly performing multiple abortions beyond the legal gestational limit of 20 weeks at his hospital in Ahmedpur, Latur. The prosecution alleged violations of Section 3(2)(a)(b) and Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, along with Sections 315 and 316 IPC. The case arose after a surprise inspection by a Medical Superintendent, who found records of terminations at 24 - 27 weeks without prior approval from the District MTP Advisory Committee.
Procedural History
- 15.02.2022: Surprise inspection conducted by Medical Superintendent Dattartraya Birajdar at Kingaonkar Hospital.
- 08.03.2022: Official inspection squad, including medical officers and legal advisors, verified hospital records and seized documents.
- 23.03.2022: District MTP Advisory Committee summoned Dr. Kingaonkar for explanation.
- 2024: Chargesheet filed in Sessions Court No. 27 of 2024.
- 06.03.2025: Trial court rejected Dr. Kingaonkar’s application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
- 2025: Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 CrPC challenging the discharge order.
Relief Sought
Dr. Kingaonkar sought discharge on grounds that: (1) the inspection was conducted by an unauthorized official; (2) his hospital was government-approved; and (3) all terminations beyond 20 weeks were performed in genuine medical emergencies to save the mother’s life, invoking Section 5(1) of the MTP Act. He argued no prima facie case existed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a medical practitioner’s assertion of acting in good faith under Section 5(1) of the MTP Act to justify termination beyond 24 weeks can be accepted at the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, or whether such a claim necessitates a full trial to evaluate factual circumstances and intent.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the terminations in question were emergency procedures performed to save the life of pregnant women, including one case where the fetus was stillborn and the mother suffered severe preeclampsia. He relied on P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Captain Manjit Singh Virdi to argue that Section 5(1) provides an absolute exception when termination is immediately necessary to save life, and that good faith is inherent in such medical decisions. He further argued that the inspection was illegal as only a Civil Surgeon, not a Medical Superintendent, is authorized to initiate such action.
For the Respondent
The State countered that voluminous documentary evidence - including hospital registers, ultrasound reports, and statements of raiding officers - revealed a pattern of non-compliance with MTP Act procedures. The prosecution emphasized that Section 5(1) requires not just a claim of emergency, but proof of good faith and immediate necessity, which cannot be presumed. The charge-sheet contained sufficient material to frame charges, and the trial court correctly declined discharge.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 5(1) of the MTP Act, which permits termination beyond gestational limits when a registered medical practitioner, acting in good faith, opines that termination is immediately necessary to save the woman’s life. The Court noted that while the provision is broad, it hinges on the subjective but objective standard of good faith - a concept not defined in the Act but understood in legal terms as honest, conscientious action with due care.
"The pivot or linchpin of the above provision is, 'good faith'. It is sole opinion of the medical practitioner which is to be formed only in emergent cases and not otherwise."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the claim of medical emergency alone sufficed to warrant discharge. It held that good faith is not self-provable at the preliminary stage. As per Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act, the burden lies on the person asserting good faith to prove it through evidence. The Court cited Sewakram Sobhani v. R.K. Karanjia and Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab to affirm that good faith is a question of fact requiring examination of medical records, contemporaneous notes, patient history, and expert testimony - all of which can only be assessed during trial.
The Court also clarified that while Section 3(1) of the MTP Act immunizes registered practitioners from IPC liability for lawful terminations, Section 5 imposes procedural obligations. The prosecution’s evidence, including seized documents and expert statements, established a prima facie case of non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 3(2) and potential misuse of Section 5(1). The Court emphasized that Section 227 CrPC does not permit the court to act as a trial judge or weigh evidence; it only requires satisfaction that a case for trial exists.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court held that the claim of good faith under Section 5(1) of the MTP Act cannot be adjudicated at the discharge stage. The existence of sufficient material to frame charges, including alleged procedural violations and contested medical justifications, warranted trial. The petitioner must now face trial to prove his assertion of emergency and good faith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Good Faith Is Not Presumed, It Must Be Proved
- Practitioners cannot rely solely on verbal assertions of medical emergency to seek discharge under Section 227 CrPC.
- Hospitals must maintain contemporaneous, detailed clinical records justifying terminations beyond 20 weeks, including maternal vitals, fetal status, and rationale for decision.
- Legal counsel must prepare for trial-level evidence on good faith, not merely argue statutory exceptions at the preliminary stage.
Unauthorized Inspections Do Not Invalidate Chargesheet
- Even if an inspection is initiated by an official lacking statutory authority, the resulting evidence may still be admissible if independently corroborated.
- The focus shifts to the reliability and consistency of the seized documents and expert testimony, not the procedural flaw in the inspection’s origin.
Section 5(1) Is an Exception, Not a Shield
- Section 5(1) is not a blanket immunity; it applies only when termination is immediately necessary to save life.
- Courts will scrutinize whether the practitioner exercised due diligence, consulted available resources, and documented the emergency.
- Repeated terminations beyond 20 weeks without documented emergencies may indicate systemic non-compliance, not isolated emergencies.
