Pregnant Woman’s Bodily Autonomy Is Intrinsic Part Of Fundamental Right: Delhi HC Allows Termination Of 22 Weeks’ Pregnancy Arising From Live-In Relationship
|The Delhi High Court has allowed the termination of pregnancy of 22 weeks arising from a live-in relationship, saying that the pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy is an intrinsic part of the fundamental right.
A disserted married woman of 27 years had filed a writ petition seeking medical termination of her pregnancy under Sections 3(2)(b) and 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) read with Rule 3B (c) of the MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021.
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed, “The Petitioner’s plea is also rooted in her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty. This liberty encompasses the right to make reproductive choices, including the termination of pregnancy under conditions that pose a risk to the woman's mental health and well-being. The Supreme Court of India has affirmed these rights, emphasizing the importance of considering the woman’s current health, her life’s conditions, and her future well-being while making such decisions. Therefore, it is clear that a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy and right of self-determination is an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
Advocate Amit Mishra represented the petitioner while ASC Mehak Nakra, CGSC Arunima Dwivedi, and Panel Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The petitioner got married in 2016 and out of the wedlock, a baby girl was born in 2017. However, subsequently her husband abandoned her and the child. As such, the whereabouts of her husband were not known to her. She was raising her daughter on her own with financial hardships and difficulties. In August 2024, she felt nausea and went to the doctor for consultation at the Delhi Government Dispensary where she was advised to get an ultrasound scan. The scan revealed that she was 21 weeks and 4 days pregnant. She claimed that she did not realise the pregnancy till such a belated stage due to certain health concerns, particularly an irregular menstrual cycle. The said pregnancy was an unwanted one as it arose from a live-in relationship.
The petitioner was concerned about the social stigma and ostracization she would have to face. She was from a poor background and had serious financial constraints due to which she was not in a position to raise and nurture a second child. Once she became aware of the pregnancy, she went to various doctors and clinics seeking medical termination of her pregnancy, however, all doctors refused to do so, on the ground of limitation under the MTP Act for pregnancies above 20 weeks. Hence, she was before the High Court seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “… the medical opinion rendered by the AIIMS medical board cannot be considered to be a comprehensive or complete assessment of the Petitioner’s health in terms of her foreseeable environment. The Petitioner has made it clear that she is already struggling to financially take care of her first child, even working multiple jobs to sustain her child and herself. As such, the reasonably foreseeable environment of the Petitioner should have been factored in by the medical board in their opinion of the physical and mental health of the Petitioner.”
The Court emphasised that the MTP Act is a welfare legislation, aimed at providing reproductive autonomy to women which is inextricably linked to bodily autonomy and the right to live a dignified life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. It said that the decisional autonomy or the right of a person to make self-determined choices is also recognised as an integral part of the right of privacy.
“… the Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the ongoing pregnancy of the Petitioner poses a risk to her mental well-being considering the reasonably foreseeable environment for both the Petitioner and the unborn child”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition and permitted the petitioner to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at a medical facility of her choice.
Cause Title- Mrs. C v. The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6201)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Amit Mishra, Rahul Sharma, Shiven Mishra, and Ankit Srivastava.
Respondents: ASC Mehak Nakra, CGSC Arunima Dwivedi, Panel Counsel Satya Ranjan Swain, GP Pinky Pawar, Advocates Aakash Pathak, Kautilya Birat, and Ankush Kapoor.