Abortion beyond 24 weeks was refused to a woman who says her husband hid an earlier marriage; the Bombay High Court held that “relief cannot exceed the four corners of statute”. Mumbai: Turning down a 33-year-old married woman’s plea to have her pregnancy medically terminated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, because […]
The Allahabad High Court held that marital estrangement by itself is no ground for termination under the MTP Rules and dismissed a married woman’s plea, while directing Rs 12,000 a month from the husband’s salary and free marital counselling.
The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi government to constitute an independent multidisciplinary Medical Board to decide, within four weeks, on parents’ request for a hysterectomy for their adult daughter with cerebral palsy, holding that disability alone can never be the only ground to deny reproductive autonomy and that its order is not an approval of the surgery.
The Chhattisgarh High Court permitted a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy beyond 28 weeks, holding that forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy would violate her dignity, bodily autonomy, privacy and reproductive rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Today, On 24th April, The Supreme Court observed that no court can compel a woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy against her will, emphasising reproductive autonomy. It permitted a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her pregnancy despite crossing seven months gestation.
Today, On 6th February, Supreme Court allows termination of a 30-week unwanted pregnancy, emphasizing that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right for women.The Court stated that no court can force a woman, especially a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
The Supreme Court today has sought the Central Government’s response on a PIL challenging the exclusion of single unmarried women and transgender persons from the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Justice Nagarathna emphasized the need to handle this case separately, as it addresses specific issues for transgender and single women. Dr. Aqsa Shaikh argues that the exclusion violates constitutional rights.
NEW DELHI: Last week , The Supreme Court noted that pregnancy is not exclusive to cisgender women but can also be experienced by individuals identifying as non-binary, transgender men, and various other gender identities. The clarification came during the adjudication of a case involving the termination of pregnancy for a 14-year-old girl who had been sexually assaulted.
