Punjab and Haryana High Court highlights the intrinsic link between a woman’s sexual autonomy and her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in the context of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
CHANDIGARH: On 11th March, The Punjab and Haryana High Court highlighted the intrinsic link between a woman’s sexual autonomy and her fundamental rights. The court’s deliberations shed light on the nuanced interpretations of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, particularly in the context of unmarried women and their rights to bodily integrity and autonomy.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj, presiding over the case, articulated that
“the law recognizes the exercise of sexual autonomy by an individual as an integral part of an inviolate right conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is embodied in her right to life and for protection of her bodily integrity.”
This statement underscores the judiciary’s recognition of personal autonomy as a cornerstone of a woman’s right to life.
However, Justice Bhardwaj also emphasized that such autonomy comes with its set of responsibilities, stating:
“the exercise of such right also comes along with the responsibility to discharge duties that arise on exercise of such an option.”
He further elaborated on the consequences of personal choices, noting-
“A person may be called upon to live with the consequences of the option exercised, when such consequences cannot be erased and are required to co-exist. The desirability of a circumstance cannot outweigh the reality of the circumstance.”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds Women’s Reproductive Rights, Dismisses Challenge to MTP Act
The court’s observations came to light during the examination of a plea by an 18-year-old student seeking to terminate her 26-week pregnancy, resulting from a consensual relationship. Despite the Medical Board’s recommendation against termination due to the advanced stage of pregnancy, the court explored the legal frameworks and moral considerations at play.
Justice Bhardwaj delved into the MTP (Amendment) Rules 2021, particularly Rule 3B, which allows for abortion up to 24 weeks under specific circumstances, including a change in marital status. He drew parallels between the rights afforded to married women and the predicaments faced by unmarried women, asserting:
“A changed scenario, in terms of requirement has to presume a legal recognition of a relationship with her partner at par with a spousal relationship stipulated under Rule 3 B of the Rules of 2003.”
The court’s discourse extended beyond the immediate legal frameworks to address the broader societal and ethical implications. It highlighted the disparity in legal recognition between pregnancies resulting from sexual assault and those arising from consensual relationships between unmarried adults.
“The same is silent with respect to the pregnancies as a result of consensual sexual relationship between consenting adults,”
– remarked the court, pointing out the need for the law to adapt to changing social norms and requirements.
In a poignant observation, the court noted:
“The Court cannot be indifferent to the plight of single woman/mother’s exercising a right recognized in law and to force them to live with the consequences of exercises of such right with no respite.”
This statement reflects a growing judicial awareness of the complexities surrounding women’s reproductive rights and the need for a more inclusive legal framework.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Bench Split on Abortion Case; Fresh Hearing Scheduled
Furthermore, the court underscored the importance of privacy and dignity, affirming that
“Her right of privacy and dignity empowers her to make a choice as to whether she would like to disclose the name of the partner or not and that the law cannot compel a woman to make public the name of the person who is the father of the foetus and/or the child.”
Despite recognizing the petitioner’s right to seek medical termination, the court ultimately denied the request due to the pregnancy’s advanced stage and the associated ethical dilemmas. However, it mandated a review to ascertain if termination could proceed without committing feticide.