The Bombay high court on Monday permitted a 22-year-old unmarried woman to medically terminate her 21-week pregnancy, despite a medical board finding no grounds for the termination. The court cited recognition of the woman’s right to “reproductive autonomy” and to make an independent decision about her body while giving the permission.
“She is an adult and is capable of taking her own independent decisions,” a division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna said, adding that the decision was based on the peculiar facts of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.
On October 7, the court directed the dean of the Sir JJ Group of Hospitals to constitute a medical board to clinically examine the woman. The board, consisting of six leading doctors, recorded that the woman had no congenital anomalies or psychiatric disorders. Therefore, it said there were no medical grounds for terminating the pregnancy at this gestational age.
Also Read | Abortion access beyond the metros
The board clarified that if the court allowed it, the termination could be done at any tertiary care institute, with a very low possibility of the foetus being born alive.
{{/usCountry}}The board clarified that if the court allowed it, the termination could be done at any tertiary care institute, with a very low possibility of the foetus being born alive.
{{/usCountry}}The woman informed the court that she had consulted her gynaecologist, understood the potential risks involved in the termination process, and had independently decided to proceed with it, subject to the court’s permission. She said that she was pursuing an undergraduate architecture course and plans to go abroad to pursue a master’s degree next year.
The court noted that the woman’s parents supported her stand, no pressure had been exerted on her, and the pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship.
Also Read | Doctor couple booked in second sex determination abortion-related case
Hence, the bench permitted the termination at a private hospital, as requested by the woman, subject to proper medical supervision and adherence to all legal procedures. At the same time, it cautioned that “this order is passed in the peculiar factual complexion of the given case and ought not be treated as precedent”.