The Bombay High Court recently permitted a woman to terminate her 33-week pregnancy, reinforcing that it is her right to decide, not the Medical Board’s or the court’s. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and SG Dige, stated that the woman’s right to choose termination falls within the law and cannot be abrogated.
The petitioner, a married woman, sought to end her pregnancy after discovering that her unborn child had severe anomalies like microcephaly and lissencephaly (abnormal brain and head development). She argued that she couldn’t afford to bear the financial burden of caring for a child born with these conditions.
The court had previously ordered a Medical Board at Sassoon Hospital, Pune, to assess the case. The Board’s report claimed that the deformities were correctable through free treatment at government and municipal hospitals. However, it did not recommend termination due to the advanced stage of pregnancy.
Advocate Aditi Saxena argued that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the length of pregnancy is not a decisive factor when severe fetal anomalies are involved. The mother was also physically fit for the procedure.
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stressing that denying her the right to terminate the pregnancy would violate her dignity, reproductive autonomy, and decision-making rights. The bench added that such cases pose deep questions about personal identity, self-determination, and the right to make an informed choice.
The court questioned what would happen if the petitioner was forced to give birth to a child with serious medical issues, potentially leading to the difficult decision of placing the child up for adoption. The bench said accepting the Medical Board’s view would condemn the fetus to a poor quality of life and impose an overwhelming emotional and financial burden on the parents.
Commenting on the 1971 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the court noted that while the law was ahead of its time, it must be applied with justice, especially when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals in complex and emotionally challenging situations.
The court concluded that justice must be delivered based on the facts and not be blind to the realities faced by individuals, ensuring the petitioner’s rights are fully respected.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
