Right to make reproductive choices is a facet of personal liberty under Article 21: Kerala HC

Kerala HC Issues Notice On LiveLaw's Plea Challenging New IT Rules

The Bench of Justices AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Shaji P Chaly of the Kerala High Court on Saturday allowed a plea for aborting a 24-week old foetus carried by a 14-year-old rape survivor while keeping in view the reproductive rights of the survivor.

Prior Facts:

The father of the survivor had moved the High Court after a Sessions Court declined to allow the plea for abortion given that the pregnancy had exceeded the permissible 20-week period for abortion under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.

The survivor had eloped with a married man months earlier. Proceedings under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were initiated against the man. By the time the custody of the survivor had been restored to her parents, the pregnancy had already advanced beyond the 20 weeks.

Key Features:

  • To decide on the plea for medically terminating the pregnancy, the High Court considered a medical report which stated that there were substantial risks to the survivor’s mental health, given her young age.
  • The Medical Board also told the Court that there were substantial risks that the baby would develop physical and mental abnormalities, for the same reason.
  • These findings were also supported by the Head of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology of Government medical college, also a member of the Board, during an interaction with the judges over a private video conference.
  • The Court was further informed that, at any rate, the survivor did not wish to continue with the pregnancy.
  • In this backdrop, the Court pointed out that Section 5 of the MTP Act also provides for an exception to Section 3, whereby the 20-week window for abortion can be disregarded in exceptional circumstances where the mother’s life is in danger due to the pregnancy.
  • The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India and others (2017) and A v. Union of India and others (2018) as well as the Kerala High Court’s ruling in X v. State of Kerala and others (2016).
  • If the baby was to survive the procedure, the Court has emphasised that all possible measures must be taken towards the healthy development of the child.
  • For the welfare measure of the child, the court relied on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in XYZ v. Union of India & Ors (2019).

Judgement:

  • The Kerala High Court while allowing the abortion stated that, “we are of the view that the ‘Y”s right to make reproductive choices is also a facet of her liberty as understood under Article 21 of our Constitution. The said choice would extend to deciding whether or not to carry her pregnancy to its full term”.
  • They added that “Although the said right is subject to the restrictions imposed under the MTP Act, in the instant case, we find that the report of the Medical Board justifies ‘Y’’s decision and besides, she also has the consent of her parents to terminate her pregnancy”.
  • The Court stated that “If the child is born alive, despite the attempts at medical termination of the pregnancy, the doctors shall ensure that everything, which is reasonably possible and feasible in the circumstances and contemplation of the law prescribed for the purpose, is offered to such child so that he/she develops into a healthy child”.

Edited by J. Madonna Jephi

Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje

Reference:

  • Case of ABC vs. Union of India, represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001; the State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Child welfare, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin 695014; Station House Officer/Inspector of Police, Viyyoor Police Station, Thrissur-Kundukad Road, Mannumkad, Ramavarmapuram, Thrissur, Kerala 680001; Director of Medical Education, Medical College Kumarapuram Rd, Chalakkuzhi, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala 6950115; Superintendent, Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, M. G. Kavu, Kerala 680596; WP(C).TMP-9/2020 decided on April 04, 2020, by the High Court of Kerala.
Previous articleInternational Council of Jurists Move UNHRC against China Seeking COVID-19 Reparations
Next articleThe burden to prove a property is a Joint Property of Hindu Undivided Family is on the person who aserts in the same way: Supreme Court
Vaibhav Goyal is a 3rd year BA.LLB (H) student of UILS, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India. He also basically belongs to the “City Beautiful-Chandigarh”. He had interned and have work experience at various Central and State Government bodies of India including the National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi; the Central Information Commission, New Delhi; U.T. Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, etc. His research projects includes the study on the Right to Emergency Services (PSHRC), Resettlement of Migrant People (NHRC), Implications of RTI in Financial Institutions (CIC), etc. His publications involve articles in different fields of law like administrative, jurisprudence, etc. on online journals including the Juscholars Blog, Burnished Law Journal, etc. His research paper on Prison Reform was published in the Panjab University Journal and his paper was selected in category of best abstract on the topic of Naxalism: A State of Lawlessness and Arbitrariness. He had scored well in various competitions of law consisting of Quiz, Essay Writing, Lecture, Declamation, etc. He had also participated in various conferences including the World Law Forum Conference on Strategic Lawsuits on Public Participation held in New Delhi on Oct 20, 2018 and the National Law Conclave 2020 held at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi on Jan 11, 2020.