Author: Kurma Bhanu Chandra Jyothi, Sri Padmavati Mahila Viswavidhyalayam.
To The Point
This case Introduced in 2009 of august, 28th. Hon’ble justice of K.G. Balakrishna and the hon’ble justice of p. sathasivam and the hon’ble justice B.S. Chauhan.
In this case petitioner was Suchita Srivastava and Respondent was Chandigarh administration.
Coming to the point, an orphaned women become pregnant and her mental health was not well. even she also does not know about her pregnancy. She was living in a government welfare institution at Chandigarh. She did not have any guardian or parents. She had mental capacity at the age of nine years old.
When the welfare members notice that, she was not well and complained about lower abdomen pain and feeling like nausea at time of her 9 weeks pregnancy. So, the welfare team found that she was pregnant and everyone do not know about her pregnancy, how it happened. She was pregnant as a result of an alleged rape. This rape place at government institution which is located at Chandigarh. This welfare institution for the people who are not have Gaudian or unparent and mental capacity peoples.
So, here the government of Chandigarh filed a criminal case in the police station. After they appointed medical boards committees. The committees board evaluated that mental status of woman and another medical board opined that terminate the woman pregnancy. Because of her mental disability and if she conceived who is take care of child and her responsibility. Woman have no Gaudian and no parents. If she is unable to take of child of her mental health issue. So medical board confirmed that woman’s pregnancy shall be terminated.
After the government After that the government of Chandigarh filed a petition with the high court of Punjab, stated that requesting for termination of pregnancy.
The High Court of Punjab granted permission to terminate the pregnancy of woman. Now woman not satisfied with the decision of high court, she approached supreme court.
Use of Legal Jargon
In the case the legal jargon is Article -21 defines that right to life and personal liberty. This article says that every person has their personal (individual) rights. Which is dignity, autonomy and privacy.
Abortion: India’s abortion law is known as Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MPT) Act, it is saying that abortion can legally be performed.
Health – To provide medical care to the person
Humanitarian Grounds – To provide relief to woman in cases of Rape, Incest, and unwanted pregnancy.
Eugenic Grounds – To allow abortions in cases where the fetus has serious physical or mental abnormalities.
The Medical Termination of pregnancy act only allowed abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. They have approval from one doctor. If the pregnancy within 12 weeks they need two doctors’ approval. Or if the pregnancy between 12 to 20 weeks for these advancements in medical board (technology) made late term abortion is safer.
In India, 2021 Amendment to the abortion act.
To The Proof
The case is based on Medical Termination of pregnancy act 1971. According to section 3 of the MTP act, a woman can permit access to abortion under certain circumstances and conditions. Including woman’s consent for abortion. Without woman consent anyone can not remove pregnancy.
This section 3 and 4 says that, do not apply if the pregnancy is result of rape and the length of the pregnancy does not exceed 12 weeks.
Medical Boards:
Medical Boards for evaluate the mental status of woman. These medical board found that, a woman has intellectual disability. And another board opined that woman’s pregnancy can be terminated.
High court of Punjab, given decision to the government i.e. The expert body recommended that, even though the woman was “unable to appreciate and understand the consequences and conditions of her own future and that of the child she is bearing,” her condition did not warrant termination of pregnancy.
Abstract
An orphaned woman became a pregnant raped by unknown person. She was living at government – run welfare institution which is for mental disabilities people and no parent child and Gaudian.
Woman mentally not fit and she became pregnant. The welfare committee notice that her health issue and she is feeling lower abdominal pain and nausea. They confirmed that she was pregnant.
The government of Chandigarh filed a criminal case in police station. Medical Boards for evaluate the mental status of woman. These medical board found that, a woman has intellectual disability. And another board opined that woman’s pregnancy can be terminated.
The government of Chandigarh filed petition to the High Court of Punjab, stated that requesting permission to terminate the pregnancy.
Punjab High court check detailed facts about the case and given decision to Favor of government of Chandigarh. The expert body recommended that, even though the woman was “unable to appreciate and understand the consequences and conditions of her own future and that of the child she is bearing,” her condition did not warrant termination of pregnancy.
After Woman not satisfied with the decision of high court, she approached supreme court for her pregnancy termination.
At time of she approached supreme court, she was 19 weeks into her pregnancy but according to medical termination of pregnancy act,1971 section 3 defines that in India only permits abortion up to 20 weeks.
Issues Raised
Whether it was correct on part of the High Court to direct the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the woman in question?
Even if the said woman was assumed to be mentally incapable of making an informed decision, what are the appropriate standards for a Court to exercise `Parens Patriae’ jurisdiction?
Arguments of the Petitioners:
At the time of the order for the termination of pregnancy, she was already 19 weeks pregnant, while the statutory limit for abortion is 20 weeks as per MTP Act. Doing same at that time may cause harm to physical health of woman.
The MTP Act respects the personal autonomy of mentally retarded person who are above age of majority. As she expressed her willingness to bear the child.
In spite of lack of understanding the sexual act resulting pregnancy, her reproductive choice should be respected regardless she is mentally retarded.
Arguments of the respondent:
It was contended on behalf of the respondent’s council that the medical expert who appeared voiced the concern that the constant care and supervision throughout the pregnancy would require a certain degree physical, emotional, and social burden and she was not capable of handling them as she was an orphan.
They also alerted that the victim may change her opinions in the coming future is she was willing to bear the child.
Finally, supreme court given decision to favour of Woman, because considering first issue, termination of pregnancy without consent of the woman.
According to Medical termination of pregnancy act, 1971. Section 3 defines that; Consent is essential point for performing an abortion on a woman.
Case Laws:
1.Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India (2017)
Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India case involved a woman who sought to terminate her 24-week pregnancy due to severe fetal abnormalities. The Supreme Court granted permission for abortion, stating that the woman’s right to life included the right to make reproductive choices. The ruling underscored the significance of bodily autonomy and health risks associated with continuing a pregnancy under such circumstances.
2.XYZ v. State of Maharashtra (2021)
In XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court allowed a minor to terminate her pregnancy beyond the 20-week limit due to her socio-economic condition and the impact of the pregnancy on her mental health. The ruling highlighted the importance of considering individual circumstances and mental health when adjudicating abortion cases.
3.Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022)
The Supreme Court in Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal expanded the definition of a family to recognise relationships outside the traditional marriage institution. The judgment paved the way for the interpretation of reproductive rights for unmarried women, affirming that the law should reflect the realities of modern relationships and not be limited by outdated societal norms.
4.X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department (2022)
This landmark decision in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department removed the artificial distinction between married and unmarried women in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The Supreme Court ruled that all women, regardless of marital status, have the right to seek an abortion within the legally permitted gestational period. The court emphasised that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act should not discriminate based on marital status and that the right to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and dignity under Article 21 applies equally to all women.
Conclusion
The case regarding abortion for mentally not well and disability person, the high given decision is fine but srivasstava not agree for her abortion. So, she approached supreme court and the hon’ble supreme court decision favour of Srivastava. A woman without consent any person can not do abortion. If she was unable to take of child also, person’s without consent cannot do an abortion according to Medical termination act, 1971 under section 3.
I am agreed that Hon’ble supreme court decision and but now a days there so many living relationships and women became pregnant and they easily removing their pregnancy. This is impacting our culture and next generation.
The MTP Act ok for the people for, who are disable persons and raped persons, who are not able conceive a child for their health issue. But some of them may be used for their unwanted pregnancy. It will impact our culture and future generation.
FAQS
Case Background
1. What was the case about?
The case involved a mentally challenged woman, Suchita Srivastava, who became pregnant after being raped at a government-run welfare institution in Chandigarh.
2. What was the issue before the court?
The issue was whether the High Court was correct in ordering the termination of Srivastava’s pregnancy without her consent.
Legal Aspects
1. Which laws were involved in the case?
The case involved the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, and the Indian Constitution, particularly Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
2. What was the court’s decision on the MTP Act?
The court held that the MTP Act does not permit the termination of pregnancy without the consent of the pregnant woman, even if she is mentally challenged.
Reproductive Rights
1. What did the court say about reproductive rights?
The court emphasized the importance of reproductive autonomy and held that a mentally challenged woman has the right to make reproductive choices.
2. Did the court recognize the rights of persons with disabilities?
Yes, the court recognized the rights of persons with disabilities, including their right to reproductive autonomy and dignity.
Impact
1. What was the impact of the court’s decision?
The court’s decision upheld the reproductive rights of women with disabilities and emphasized the importance of respecting their autonomy.
2. Did the case set a precedent?
Yes, the case set a precedent for the protection of reproductive rights of women with disabilities in India.
