A (Mother of X) v State of Maharashtra & Anr, [2024] 5 S.C.R.470
Appellant – A (Mother of X)
Respondent – State of Maharashtra
Court – Supreme Court of India
Bench – Honble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Introduction
Abortion a fundamental right which even though legalized still faces backlash due to moral and societal stigma. The case of A(mother of X) revolves around termination of pregnancy of a minor girl who was a victim of sexual assault. This case dealt with many burning issues due to which it became a landmark judgment, ending the long bicker between the consent of pregnant person and the consent of family and partner. The core odyssey of this case was to set forth a rule for medical board to reflect the effect of pregnancy on the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant person, and it is this that took it from High court to Supreme Court. Additionally, it became the talk of the hour due to its urge to use the term pregnant person rather than women to include transgender and other non-binary genders.
FACTS
In this of A (mother of X) v State of Maharashtra, supreme court dealt with a civil appeal case on termination of pregnancy of a minor girl “x”, a sexual assault victim who was at a tender age of just 14yrs. The alleged assault occurred in September 2023 but was disclosed by the minor girl to her family on 20th march 2024, by which the minor girl was already 25 weeks pregnant. The reason of late disclosure was the common occurring of irregular periods making her unaware of the pregnancy at earlier stage. This disclosure was promptly followed by filing of an FIR at Turbhe MIDC Police Station, against the alleged perpetrator under various sections of IPC and POSCO Act.
On 28th march 2024, the case was presented before the High court of Bombay, under article 226 of constitution, by the appellant ‘A’ who is mother of ‘X’ to seek permission regarding termination pf pregnancy as it exceeded the prescribed limit under Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. A medical Board was formed by the Grant Government Medical College & Sir JJ Group of Hospitals to evaluate ‘X’ and form an opinion on her physical and mental health, the same to be considered for deciding the judgment. The first report certified ‘X’ to be deemed fit but was soon overruled by the clarificatory opinion which stated that the statutory limit had exceeded. This second report was made without re-evaluation of ‘X’. The clarification report aided the decision of High court who rejected the request of termination of pregnancy on 3rd April 2024. An appeal in from of Special Leave Petition was then filled under article 136 of constitution in the Supreme Court on 19th April 2024 challenging the High Court decision.
ISSUE RAISED
This case raised several serious legal issues which work as a stepping stone to the interpretation of the MPT Act and making it more inclusive law.
- Reproductive Rights of a pregnant person: The case’s core issue was on the minor’s autonomy in making decisions regarding her reproductive rights, especially in the case of unintended pregnancy resulting from cases of sexual assault and incest. It also questions as to what extent a minors consent can take priority over the consent of partner, family member or guardian in this case.
- Denial and wellbeing: What is the impact of denial of termination of pregnancy on mental and physical health of individuals, especially minors, dealing with unwanted pregnancies, particularly when out of Rape, Sexual Assault and incest and whose interest should the court prioritize?
- Fear of Prosecution among Registered Medical Practitioner: Till what extent does the fear of prosecution affect the decision of RMP, specifically in cases involving the termination of pregnancy after the completion 24 weeks, statutory limit laid out in MPT act and what measures can be taken to diminish the fear so as to shift their focus on physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant person?
- Fundamental right and MTP Act: How can the MPT act be reformed in order to ensure better access to safe abortion for minor while respecting their right over bodily autonomy and reproductive health? Should the definition of abnormal foetus include unwanted pregnancies arising out of Rape, Sexual assaults and Incest?
- Gendered language of law: This case raises the contention of how the use of gendered language in the MPT act impact the reproductive right of transgender and non-binary individuals. It also questions what ways could be adopted to ensure equitable reproduction rights?
CONTENTION
- The medical board constituted under Government medical college and JJ group of hospital, after thorough examination of mental and physical health of ‘X’, on 28th March 2024 submitted their opinion as a report declaring ‘X’ fit for termination on consent of High Court.
- The appellant pleaded in the High Court of Bombay that her minor daughter “X” who was at a tender age of 14, should be granted to terminate her pregnancy even after it exceeded the statutory period in the view of circumstance which gave rise of the unwanted pregnancy.
- On 3rd April 2024 the medical board through their “clarificatory opinion” without any re-examination changed their original decision on the basis that the gestational age of foetus has advanced the statutory limitation of MPT Act restraining the permission thus arguing against the termination.
- On 3rd April 2024 in the view of the Medical report the Bombay High Court ruled against the termination of pregnancy.
- The appellant knocked on the doors of Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition on 19th April 2024 to seek permission for termination of pregnancy. To this the Supreme Court ordered a fresh Medical board to examine and formulate an opinion by giving paramount consideration to the effect on mental and physical health of ‘X’ in case of continuance till term.
- The medical board concluded that the continuation will have a negative impact on the mental and physical wellbeing of ‘X’ and that the “risk in terminating is not higher than the risk at the completion of term.” Thus on 22nd April 2024, court pronounced its judgment overruling the High court’s judgment and allowing the termination of Pregnancy of the minor girl.
- On 26th April 2024, the medical board raised a contention due to the changing statements of the parents of the minor seeking clarifications from the court to proceed further with the procedure.
- After through discussions with both the patents and the medical board the court was questioned with whose consent shall be considered for the wellbeing of the minor girl, the parents or the pregnant person’s and what measures should be taken if there is a difference. To this court came to the conclusion of giving paramount consideration of the will of the pregnant individual over anyone in order to protect the best interest of individual.
RATIONALE
The court’s decision to allow the termination of pregnancy and then later allow the minor, on her consent, to continue the pregnancy, centred on several fundamental beliefs
Firstly, the court recognized the right to abortion as a fundamental right, as per article 21, a concurrent to right of dignity, privacy, autonomy and reproductive choice. It laid emphasis on the fact that the right to termination of pregnancy is extremely personal and not a sheer reproductive freedom as it has a direct effect on the physical and mental wellbeing of the pregnant individual.
Secondly the court also vouched that MTP Ac protect the registered medical practitioners and the board against prosecution if their opinions were based on good faith and in favour of physical and mental wellbeing of the regnant individual. It also acknowledge that the fear creates a barrier in formulating opinion thus leading to a biased opinion which have repercussions for safety of pregnant persons and creates distress often pushing them towards unsafe abortions.
Thirdly, court also highlighted that the opinion of the medical board on pregnancy exceeding the statutory limitation of MPT act should not be barred to strictly adhering to the provision of 3(2-b) but must focus on physical and mental health of the pregnant person and providing full details to courts in order to aid them declare a fair judgment.
Fourthly, that the court should not deny the right to abortion just against the provision without considering the circumstance as to deny will make the decision unreasonable and arbitrary as in this case to classify abnormal foetus differently from than instance such as rape or incest will be unreasonable and injustice to the minor. It also clarified that the High court should balance the legislative mandate as well as fundamental right of the person seeking termination as the person seeks permission only in the cases of exceeding the statutory limitation.
Fifthly, the court underscored that the minor’s consent and view in regards with the termination will play a significant factor in deciding courts judgment irrespective of the fact that it differs from that of the guardian. This decision paved way to clear the ambiguity by giving right and choice of the pregnant person power and freeing it from consent and opinions of another person over their bodily autonomy.
Finally, in this case court determined the sole and only consideration of the “court must weigh the safety ad welfare of the minor child” thus the court recalled its earlier order to terminate pregnancy after the minor wanted to continue the same.
DEFECTS OF THE LAW
Despites the progressive take, the judgment illuminates many deficiencies in the current law:
- The fear of prosecution in registered medical practitioners and the board creates barriers in formulation of a non-biased and wellbeing focused often pushing the individual in the dark ally of unsafe abortion while threatening the fundamental right of pregnant individuals.
- The ambiguity that only an abnormal foetus with cause injury to the wellbeing of the pregnant individual as per the section 3(2-B) of MPT Act and no other circumstances, highlights the potential arbitrariness of the statutory provisions.
- The court also highlights the consequence the pregnant individual faces due to the delay cause by the changes in medical board opinions or of the courts often resulting in frustration of the fundamental rights of pregnant persons especially in time-sensitive cases like this case as the gestational age advanced towards completion during the procedure.
- Lastly the court also recognized the gender language such as the use of “pregnant women” of the act which makes it as a barricade, infringing rights of marginalized individuals and to adopt more inclusive terms like “pregnant individuals” to give acknowledgment to them and to protect their rights.
INFERENCE
In the case of A (mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has highlighted the critical balance that courts must maintain between the statutory provisions and the protection of the rights of the pregnant individual. It also illuminates the primacy of reproductive rights as the fundamental right under art 21 of the Indian constitution. Through this case the court prioritizes the consent and well-being of the pregnant individual before deciding in regards of termination of pregnancy and the same to triumph over other’s opinions, including the partner, family or guardian. It also criticizes the barriers bludgeon by the MTP Act thwarting an unbiased decisions by medical practitioner due to the fear of prosecution and the repercussions it has on the individual’s right as well as wellbeing. It also lays a discerning eye on the delays caused by procedural limitation further risking the life of the person seeking remedy. It also advocates to use “pregnant persons” to acknowledge right of transgender and other non-binary individuals. This landmark judgment serves as a clarification and a new perspective of interpretation of law as well as promote robust medical evaluation and speedy decisions in order to ensure that no procedural or societal limitation hinders access to safe and legal abortion facilities.
Janhvi Tripathi
Isbr Law college