SC Rejects Woman's Plea To Terminate 26-Week Pregnancy: All We Know

The Supreme Court of India, in its sitting on October 16, 2023, delivered a ruling denying a married woman's plea to terminate her third pregnancy, which had advanced beyond the 26-week mark.

The case, which carried considerable weight, centred around the woman's claim of suffering from postpartum psychosis after her last delivery in September 2022. This complex legal battle was presided over by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.

The Challenging Dilemma

The petitioner, a married woman with two children, sought to terminate her third pregnancy, citing a compelling reason: postpartum psychosis, which she experienced following her previous delivery in September 2022. The gravity of her condition, both emotionally and physically, led her to the heart-wrenching decision that she was not in a position to raise a third child. Her plea ignited a fiery debate about the interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, particularly Section 5, which allows the termination of a pregnancy if it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The Legal Framework

The crux of the matter revolved around the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, specifically Sections 3 and 5. These sections delineate the circumstances under which a pregnancy can be terminated beyond the generally accepted 24-week limit. Section 3 allows for the termination of pregnancy if it poses an immediate threat to the life of the pregnant woman or if the foetus is found to have severe abnormalities. However, the petitioner's case did not fit within these parameters.

AIIMS Evaluation

Today, the Court received the report from AIIMS, confirming the petitioner's postpartum psychosis and asserting that her medication did not adversely affect the foetus. No abnormalities were detected in the foetus, further validating her request.

The Medical and Legal Quandary

The heart of this legal conundrum lay in the interpretation of 'life' under Section 5 of the MTP Act. Advocate Amit Mishra, representing the petitioner, contended that a broad and purposive interpretation was needed, one that would consider not only physical well-being but also the meaningful existence of the pregnant woman. He argued that the termination was imperative to safeguard her life in the broader sense.

However, the bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud raised a significant concern. They cautioned against interpreting 'life' under Section 5 in the same way as 'life' under Article 21, as it might run counter to the purpose of Section 3 of the MTP Act. This, in essence, questioned whether the woman's rights could extend to terminating a pregnancy as late as the 35th week.

The CJI pointed out, "You are saying interpret 'life' to mean life that is meaningful...so you want to give her this overriding power even in the 35th week, that cannot be done."

The Changing Landscape of Choice

Additional Solicitor General Aiswarya Bhati introduced a complex dimension to the case. She argued that the issue had evolved from a mere right of choice to a 'Hobson's choice' - a choice between a pre-term and a full-term delivery. A pre-term delivery could jeopardise the baby's chances of survival, leading to severe physical and mental abnormalities. Bhati's assertion was that post-24 weeks, the choice of termination becomes restricted, as it is now dependent on specific grounds - an immediate threat to the mother's life or foetal abnormalities, neither of which applied in this case.

Bhati also raised a unique concern regarding the termination of late-term pregnancies. She referred to instances where aborted foetuses, when disposed of, sometimes showed signs of life, such as crying or shrieking. This revelation emphasized the ethical complexities of late-term termination.

Rights and Reality

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing an intervention application, put forth two pivotal arguments. Firstly, he contended that international law did not recognize any rights of the unborn child, highlighting the absolute right of the woman in making decisions regarding pregnancy termination. This perspective challenged the notion that the foetus possessed inherent rights.

Secondly, Gonsalves addressed the medical aspect, asserting that all abortions effectively stopped the foetal heart. He argued that foeticide had been tacitly permitted through government guidelines for the last 12 years, and the termination of pregnancy resulted in the same outcome, irrespective of the gestational period.

The Court, however, reaffirmed the importance of Indian law and its supremacy. It emphasised the necessity of maintaining a balance between different rights, which had been effectively done by the legislature in 2021.

The Nationwide Debate

The Supreme Court's decision has sparked a nationwide debate on the delicate balance between a woman's right to choose and the protection of a foetus's life. Advocates for women's rights argue that this case highlights the need for a more nuanced approach to the MTP Act, which takes into account the health and well-being of pregnant individuals. On the other hand, those advocating for the sanctity of life contend that the court's decision was a necessary safeguard against the potential misuse of late-term abortion.

The Supreme Court's rejection of the woman's plea for the termination of her 26-week pregnancy has raised significant legal and ethical questions in India. The intricate interplay of medical assessments, legal interpretations, and societal values makes this case a compelling subject of debate. The ruling reflects a nuanced approach to a sensitive issue, exemplifying the Court's role as a custodian of law, ethics, and society's values. 

Suggested reading: Netizens Debate SC's Observation On 26-Week Pregnancy Termination