Today(on 6th May), The Supreme Court upheld reproductive rights in a case involving a 14-year-old rape survivor seeking abortion, reversing its prior decision due to parental concerns. This decision, on April 29, overturned the Bombay High Court’s denial of the abortion.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 6th May), the Supreme Court of India upheld the fundamental rights of choice and reproductive freedom. The case involved a 14-year-old rape survivor who sought approval for terminating her pregnancy. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, leading a three-judge bench, overturned its prior decision allowing the abortion after the teenager’s parents raised concerns about health risks associated with the procedure and expressed their desire to keep the baby. This reversal of the court’s previous judgment occurred on April 29, as it annulled the Bombay High Court’s order denying the abortion.
Exercising its exceptional authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court invoked the concept of “complete justice” to authorize the medical termination of the 14-year-old’s pregnancy. Acknowledging that the teenager was already 30 weeks pregnant and had discovered her condition very late, the court considered the existing provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. According to this law, the maximum permissible duration for terminating pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women and other specified groups, including rape survivors and minors.
Chief Justice Chandrachud emphasized-
“In this instance, both the girl and her parents are aligned in their decision to proceed with the pregnancy. The right to choose and reproductive freedom, enshrined as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, mandates that in cases where the pregnant minor’s opinion diverges from that of her guardian, the court must give significant weight to the pregnant individual’s perspective when determining the termination of the pregnancy.”
ALSO READ: SC uses the term “Pregnant person,” Not Pregnant women, in Judgment
The court’s judgement further stated-
“The decision to proceed with the pregnancy, even if the court permits termination, rests solely with the individual.”
Additionally, Chief Justice Chandrachud issued guidelines for the Medical Board responsible for examining requests for termination of pregnancy. The guidelines emphasize that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act protects the Registered Medical Practitioners (RMP) and the medical boards when they form an opinion in good faith regarding the termination of pregnancy.
The medical board, in evaluating a termination request, should not limit itself to the criteria outlined in Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act but must also consider the physical and emotional well-being of the pregnant person. The court stressed that when providing a clarificatory opinion, the medical board must provide sound and cogent reasons for any change in opinion and circumstances.
The court underscored the paramount importance of the pregnant person’s consent in matters of termination and reproductive autonomy.
It stated-
“The consent of the pregnant individual holds utmost importance in matters concerning reproductive autonomy and abortion decisions. When there is a disparity between the views of the pregnant person and their guardian, the perspective of the pregnant minor or mentally incapacitated individual should be considered a crucial factor in aiding the court to reach a fair judgment.”
To clarify its decision to recall the earlier order, the Supreme Court emphasized that the MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person regarding the continuation or termination of the pregnancy.
The court stated-
“The legislation and jurisprudence concerning abortion established by the courts do not allow for involvement by the family or partner of a pregnant individual in matters of reproductive choice.”
The court also addressed the issue of delay by medical boards in providing opinions on termination requests. It noted that in this particular case, the passage of time in seeking permission from the court had led to the gestational age of the fetus reaching almost 29 weeks.
While acknowledging that a pregnancy beyond the statutory prescription would require the intervention of a constitutional court, the court stressed the importance of time sensitivity and the need to prioritize the fundamental rights of pregnant individuals. The court held that medical boards evaluating pregnant individuals with a gestational age above 24 weeks must provide comprehensive details on the physical and mental health of the person when submitting their opinions to the court.
ALSO READ: Woman’s Sole Authority on Abortion, Decrees Supreme Court
The case that prompted this landmark decision involved a 14-year-old girl who went missing in February 2023 and was found three months later in Rajasthan, pregnant as a result of sexual assault. The Bombay High Court had initially denied permission for abortion, expressing concerns about the potential risks and health complications associated with a forced delivery of an underdeveloped child.
