Central Idea

A Division Bench of two judges of the Supreme Court grappled with divergent views regarding the abortion of a 26-week pregnancy and the government’s stance to protect the “unborn child.”
The judges, unable to reach a consensus, opted to refer the case to the CJI to convene a three-judge Bench for further deliberation.

Woman’s Plight for Abortion

A mother of two with her youngest child just a one-year-old infant, she asserted her desire for a medically induced abortion due to her mental health condition and her inability to care for a third child.
Her lawyer stressed the court should prioritize the mother’s well-being.
He emphasized the threat to her privacy and dignity and her conscious decision to not proceed with the pregnancy.

Legal Argument: The Additional Solicitor General contended that the woman did not possess an “absolute right of autonomy” to exercise her reproductive rights in a manner that would compromise the rights of the unborn child.
MTP Act of 2021: Reference was made to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act of 2021, which extended the abortion deadline to 24 weeks in “exceptional circumstances,” primarily to save the mother’s life or in the case of fatal foetal deformity.

Bodily Autonomy vs. Foetal Rights: The core of the debate centred on whether, once a viable baby exists, the woman’s right to bodily autonomy or integrity should yield to the Act, curbing her fundamental right to choose.
Court’s Earlier Decision: On October 9, the Bench had initially permitted the medical termination in line with the woman’s wishes, following a report from an All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) medical board.

Government’s Appeal: Subsequently, the Union government filed an application, citing an expert doctor’s opinion received on October 10, which advocated for giving the child a chance to survive.
State’s Responsibility: The argument was that a categorical medical opinion had emerged, offering hope for the child’s survival, and placing a responsibility on the state.

Justice Kohli’s Stance: One judge aligned with the government’s position that the woman should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy.
Justice Nagarathna’s Dissent: In contrast, the other judge dissented, asserting that the woman’s decision should be respected, considering her socio-economic circumstances, mental health, and the young age of her second child.

The Supreme Court’s divided opinion on this intricate abortion case underscores the challenging balance between a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and the state’s interest in protecting the unborn.
As the case proceeds to a three-judge Bench, it raises broader questions about the legal and ethical complexities surrounding reproductive rights and foetal interests in India’s legal landscape.