Kanav Narayan Sahgal
SEPTEMBER 2, 2023

Nearly two decades ago, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in Suchita Srivastava & Anr vs Chandigarh Administration. The judgment stayed the orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which had ruled that a ‘mentally retarded woman‘ who was raped while residing in a government-run welfare institution in Chandigarh should undergo a medical termination of pregnancy (MTP). The woman in question was an orphan who had been abandoned by her parents at an early age and was under the guardianship of the Missionaries of Charity, New Delhi.

Despite her willingness to bear a child, the High Court ruled in favour of the proposed abortion. However, the Supreme Court held that her pregnancy could not be terminated without her consent, as doing so would not serve her best interest. The Court emphasized that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is an essential aspect of ‘personal liberty‘ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right allows women to choose whether to procreate or refrain from procreating, with the key consideration being respect for their privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. Any restrictions on reproductive choices should only be in line with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.

Continued: https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/09/reassessing-indias-abortion-laws-a-call-for-change/