Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Provisions of MTP Act
In a recent development, the Supreme Court declined to entertain a petition challenging specific sections of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The bench, comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, emphasized that the Parliament had crafted these provisions keeping the interests of women at the forefront.
The plea was initiated by the non-governmental organization, Society for Protection of Unborn Child. They sought a declaration that Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, 1971, was unconstitutional as it allegedly infringed upon Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. This particular section allows for the abortion of a pregnancy if its continuation would result in
“grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.”
Furthermore, Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) states that if a pregnancy arises due to the failure of any contraceptive device or method, the distress caused by such an unintended pregnancy can be presumed to be a grave injury to the woman’s mental health.
However, the bench was not inclined to entertain the petition. Chief Justice Chandrachud questioned the counsel,
“You are challenging the provisions of the MTP Act on the ground that these provisions should not be given to them?”
When the counsel highlighted that only one of the provisions was under scrutiny and expressed concerns about registered medical practitioners assessing the mental condition of a woman, the Chief Justice retorted,
“What locus do you have? How are you affected?”
The counsel reiterated that their plea was in the form of a public interest litigation (PIL). To this, Chief Justice Chandrachud responded,
“What public interest litigation to challenge the provisions of the MTP Act. The Parliament has made some provisions in the interest of women, and now someone just wants to…You better withdraw this and pursue whatever remedy you think you have.”
Eventually, the counsel agreed to withdraw the petition, leading the bench to dismiss it with the statement,
“The petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition to enable the petitioner to move the competent high court. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”
This decision comes on the heels of another significant ruling by the Supreme Court. In that case, presided over by Justice BV Nagarathna, the court permitted a 27-week pregnant rape survivor to undergo an abortion. The judgment underscored the intrinsic link between Article 21 and reproductive autonomy. It emphasized that every woman has the right to make autonomous reproductive decisions without state interference, central to the idea of human dignity.
The court stated,
“In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognizing the competence and authority of every woman to take reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the pregnancy. The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity.”
This stance aligns with a previous order where the apex court expanded the scope of the MTP Act to include unmarried women, allowing a 25-year-old woman to terminate her 24-week pregnancy resulting from a consensual relationship. The court had then declared,
“A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and she has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity.”