Author By : Shameerpet Manasa
Institution: Mahindra University
INTRODUCTION:
Earlier, in the case of ‘X vs. NCT of Delhi’, the Supreme Court had held that even unmarried women would be allowed to resort to the “MTP Act-provided 20-24 weeks’’ time limit for termination of their pregnancies. The Bombay High Court judgment is noteworthy because it widens the window for terminating pregnancy beyond the commonly accorded ‘20-24 weeks’ span. As a consequence, this has possible scope for women who may have extraordinary circumstances that necessitate a late-term abortion. In other words, the ‘Bombay High Court 032’ opinion and its specific details and reasons deserve more analysis to understand the complexity and effects of such a decision.
“FACTS OF THE CASE”:
Unable to care for the child who had such medical conditions, the petitioner appealed for termination of the pregnancy. The ‘Medical Board’ established under the ‘MTP Act’ refused the appeal for termination as the gestation period had advanced beyond the allowed ‘24 weeks’. But the court stepped in and asked the board to reassess its decision, faced with two crucial issues. One is about whether the child born with such medical conditions would continue to need extensive and continuous ‘medical intervention’, and Whether aborting at this stage created any sort of risk or hazard to the petitioner’s ‘physical and mental health’, The report presented before the court stated that the ‘fatal deformity’ could be rectified free of cost from
‘Government and ‘major municipal Corporation hospitals’. Considering the advanced gestational age, the “Medical Termination of Pregnancy’’ was not advised even with the court’s orders.
In November 2022, Citizens for ‘Justice’ and Peace published a legal resource giving an overview of abortion laws in India. This legal resource covered the background, development, and current situation surrounding such laws as the ‘Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act’ of ‘971, and its ‘2021 amendment. It further went ahead to assess the ‘three-judge bench’ judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘X vs. Principal Health Secretary’, ‘NCT’ of Delhi, by comparing it with the case of ‘Dobbs vs. Jackson’, ‘Women’s Health Organization’ by “SCOTUS”.On appeal here petitioner had undergone a scan at ‘14 weeks’ of gestation where the fetus was reportedly normal and healthy but at the ‘29th-week’ scan, it was reported that the fetus had microcephaly and lissencephaly, ‘medical conditions’ that called for ‘special care’ which would place the fetus in life-threatening situations before its ‘tenth birthday’.
ISSUES:
1. The main question revolves around the ‘petitioner’s right’ to end her pregnancy, given the extreme anomalies in her ‘fetus’ that emerged so late in gestation.
2. The court then embarked upon a long dissertation on the ‘Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971’, discussing the position as it stood in cases involving abortions beyond ‘24 weeks’ following diagnoses of major ‘fetal abnormalities’.
3. It surely raised questions about women’s reproductive rights and whether the ‘Medical Board’ should be involved in such issues.
“ARGUMENTS IN ADVANCE”:
The case presented ‘two preliminary arguments’. The first is that the petitioners argued that the board’s recommendation is not binding on the court. They claimed that the court is allowed to make its own decision to abort the pregnancy even if it contradicts the board’s recommendations. The second argument presented by the petitioners was that ‘Sec 3(2B) MTP’ Act does not precisely state the circumstances where the ‘fetal abnormalities’ are discovered late. They, therefore, turned to the ‘writ jurisdiction’ of the court. They contended that the ‘Medical Board’ has no discretion to determine whether or not a termination can be allowed to be done. In their case, they submitted that the board merely determines the existence of gross ‘fetal abnormalities’ and observes only the safety of the termination as required by the ‘medical profession’ about the ‘mental and physical well-being’ of the mother.
Moreover, the petitioners argued that the vagaries of ‘pregnancy and childbirth’ may sometimes ‘compel a woman’ to opt for decisions during the last ‘stages of pregnancy’ that she had never in her mind. That no ‘Medical Board’ should be allowed to go
Beyond the statute that forms it. The petitioners contended that the court retains discretion to render an independent decision about whether or not the pregnancy should be terminated, ‘Section 3(2B)’ neither provides for the late discovery of ‘fetal abnormalities’, and it is the role that the law has defined for the ‘Medical Board’ should not be ‘over-exceeded’.
JUDGEMENT:
“BY BOMBAY HIGH COURT”:
This ‘writ petition’ filed by a petitioner whose ‘name, age, and address’ are withheld for reasons of obscurity is being handled by ‘Justices G.S. Patel’ and ‘S.G. Dige’ of the ‘Bombay High Court’ against the ‘State of Maharashtra’. The petitioner seeks court intervention to ‘terminate her pregnancy’ on account of serious ‘fetal anomalies’ and ‘abnormalities’ detected at the ‘32nd week of pregnancy’.
This judgment was based on ‘principles and values’ enunciated in the recent ‘Supreme Court’ case of ‘X vs. NCT’. The court emphasized that a refusal based on mere delay alone would put the ‘fetus’ to a ‘second-rate life’ while denying the ‘petitioner-mother’ the positive attributes of parenthood, ‘violative of her dignity’, ‘reproductive autonomy’, and ‘decision-making rights’.
The court interpreted ‘Section 3(2B)’ of the ‘MTP Act’ as a provision of “directory nature” which grants the ‘Medical Board’ the power to suggest and recommend instead of being an “empowering section” granting it the ‘final authority’ over decisions for ‘termination’. The court mentioned that free cost consideration of the curability of ‘fetal anomalies’ by the ‘Medical Board’ did not account for the additional care and effort from the parents on a daily and ‘weekly basis’, given that the child would most likely be attacked by ‘fatal diseases’ when she reaches the ‘age of 10’. Based on the ‘principles of a woman’s right’ to her body and pregnancy, as long as the conditions the law has imposed are met, the court ruled that the ‘right lies’ with the This right, therefore, vests in the petitioner and must not be circumvented by The ‘Medical Board’ or the court, once conditions, under which it is exercised, are met. The court strongly emphasized the petitioner’s informed choice, the need for her Autonomy, and the ‘mandate to protect her rights’ within the confines of the ‘law’.
‘RATIO DECIDENTI’:
In the case of ‘ABC v. State of Maharashtra’, the ratio decidendi revolves around issues regarding the explanation of ‘consent and legal standards’ regarding ‘sexual offenses’.
Reproductive Rights and Indian Law: A Constitutional and Human Rights Approach
CONCLUSION:
The judgment, although giving full cognizance to the amorphous connotations of autonomy bestowed upon women available under ‘Section 3(2B)’ of the ‘MTP Act’, still specifically excludes ‘unmarried women’ from availing any such autonomy. It clarified in the judgment that it was only dealing with the ‘rights and situations’ available to ‘adult married women’ under ‘Section 3’ of the ‘MTP Act’. The court constructed its partial conclusion on this point by the reason that the petitioner did not request the court to take into account the case of ‘unmarried women’. However, the judgment did not give clear reasoning as to why this logic of reproductive autonomy within the bounds of the law would not apply to ‘unmarried women’. Although this is a progressive extension by the ‘Supreme Court judgment’ in ‘X vs. NCT’, there
Is still quite a ‘significant gap’ concerning when ‘reproductive autonomy’ should apply to ‘unmarried Women’. This gap calls for ‘further clarification’ and possibly ‘future legal’.
‘Challenges’ to the ‘problem’ of ensuring ‘equal opportunity’ in exercising ‘reproductive rights’ for all women, regardless of their ‘marital status’. In this regard, the court highlighted’ the seriousness of microcephaly and ‘lissencephaly conditions’ for the ‘child’s life’ and the burdens that parents have to face. Judgment underlined the importance of a ‘woman’s right’ to ‘reproductive autonomy’, so the ‘legal prescription’ had to be read down in a way that respects and does ‘justice to this right’.
The case of ABC v. State of Maharashtra was chosen for analysis because it marks a significant development in the interpretation of reproductive rights and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act in India. It highlights the evolving legal understanding of a woman’s autonomy and right to make decisions about her own body, especially in the context of terminating a pregnancy. The case is particularly important because it addresses Section 3(2B) of the amended MTP Act, clarifying that when the legal conditions are fulfilled, the decision to terminate a pregnancy ultimately rests with the woman and not with a medical board. The Bombay High Court’s judgment also brings attention to the emotional, mental, and social aspects of unwanted pregnancies, acknowledging them as valid grounds for termination. This decision sets a progressive precedent for future cases, especially involving unmarried women, and aligns Indian jurisprudence with global human rights standards on reproductive freedom.
REFERENCE :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173651293/
About the Author
