On Monday, the Supreme Court allowed rape victim ‘Miss X’ to abort her 24-week-old foetus. ABANTIKA GHOSH outlines the provisions of the law that required the intervention of the country’s top court to save a life.
Written by Abantika Ghosh
Updated: July 26, 2016 12:43 pm
The victim got relief under an exception in section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which allows abortion after the permissible 20 weeks in case it “is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman”.
The Supreme Court Monday allowed a rape victim to abort her “abnormal” 24-week-old foetus on the ground that the pregnancy would endanger her physical and mental health. The victim got relief under an exception in section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which allows abortion after the permissible 20 weeks in case it “is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman”. That the case reached the Supreme Court, posing complicated and uncomfortable questions of law and morality, underscores the tardiness of India’s lawmaking process, and its failure to keep up with rapid change in science and society. A brief look at what began with the Haresh and Niketa Mehta case in 2008, and remains barely half done 9 years later.
When were the limitations of the “legal limit” of abortion revealed?
In 2008, Haresh and Niketa Mehta petitioned Bombay High Court to allow them to abort their 26-week-old foetus who had been diagnosed with a heart defect. For the first time, the national medical narrative took note of the fact that with the advent of medical technology, pre-natal diagnosis of defects had come a long way — and some defects could be revealed after 20 weeks has passed. The Mehtas’ plea was turned down on expert advice. But the court’s observation that only the legislature could address the demand for change in the legal limit meant that India started the process of re-evaluating provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Niketa, incidentally, had a miscarriage soon after the verdict.
Was the law challenged on any other occasion?
Yes. Last year, a 14-year-old rape victim from Gujarat sought and received permission from the Supreme Court to abort after the 20 weeks deadline had passed. Her petition was treated as a “special case”, meaning it could not be used as a precedent to grant permission in another case. Which is why the woman in whose favour the SC decided on Monday — identified in her petition as “Miss X” — needed to knock on the doors of the apex court afresh.
So, what are the provisions of the new MTP law that is in the works?
The draft Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2014, on which the Health Ministry has sought and received comments, provides for abortion beyond 20 weeks under defined conditions. As per the draft law, a healthcare provider may, “in good faith”, decide to allow abortion between 20 and 24 weeks if, among other conditions, the pregnancy involves substantial risks to the mother or child, or if it is “alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape”.
The draft law also takes into account the reality of a massive shortage of both doctors and trained midwives, and seeks to allow Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha practitioners to carry out abortions, albeit only through medical means, and not surgical ones.
The draft legislation recognises that the anguish caused by pregnancy resulting from rape “may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman”, and that such an injury could be a ground for allowing abortion.
Why is it essential to change the MTP law?
Legal and medical experts feel that a revision of the legal limit for abortion is long overdue. Foetal abnormalities show up only by 18 weeks, so just a two-week window after that is too small for the would-be parents to take the difficult call on whether to keep their baby. Even for the medical practitioner, this window is too small to exhaust all possible options before advising the patient to take the extreme step.
Again, the 45 years since the enactment of the law has seen technology break new grounds — from ultrasound to magnetic resonance imaging to a range of highend foetal monitoring devices that have taken prenatal diagnosis far beyond the illegal sex determination tests that have refused to die out completely.
The rising incidence of sex crimes, and the urgent need to empower women with sexual rights and choices both in their own interest and for the sake of reducing the fertility rate as a whole, have made it imperative that the law be changed. In any case — and what is far more worrying — is the fact that the lack of legal approval does not prevent abortions from being carried out beyond 20 weeks. And they are done in shady, unhygienic conditions by untrained, unqualified quacks, putting thousands of women at risk probably every day.
Source: Indian Express