No Restriction on Woman's Right to Exercise Her Reproductive Choice To Procreate Or Not: Kerala HC

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice V.G Arun of the Kerala High Court has held that there can be no restriction on a woman’s right to exercise her reproductive choice to either procreate or to abstain from procreating.

The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a 23-year-old MBA student for terminating her 26-week pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, of 1971. The petitioner had conceived from a consensual relationship with a classmate and got pregnant due to the failure of the contraceptives used.

The petitioner became aware of her pregnancy only when an ultrasound scan was conducted on the advice of the doctor whom the petitioner had visited complaining about irregular menstrual periods and other physical discomforts. The petitioner was also suffering from Polycystic Ovarian Disease, a condition characterized by irregular menstrual periods and therefore she had no clue about her pregnancy till the scan report was received.

The classmate, with whom she was in a relationship, left the country for higher studies and since the petitioner became mentally and emotionally disturbed, she decided to terminate her pregnancy. The petitioner was convinced that continuing with the pregnancy will aggravate her stress and mental agony and would impact her education and ability to earn a livelihood.

Since the pregnancy of the petitioner had crossed 24 weeks, none of the hospitals could terminate her pregnancy as per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, of 1971.

During the previous hearing on 26 August 2022, the High Court had directed the Medical Superintendent of the Government Medical College Hospital, Kalamassery to constitute a Medical Board to examine the petitioner and submit the opinion of the Medical Board.

The Medical Board in its opinion submitted to the court that the petitioner was having an acute stress reaction and continuation of the pregnancy may cause an exacerbation of her medical distress which may entail risk to the petitioner's life. The medical board was of the opinion that a second trimester pregnancy (MTP) could be conducted. The board also alerted about the risks involved for the mother and baby.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that the petitioner has physical and mental stress. He also submitted that since the petitioner wants to continue her education and she is willing to face the risks associated with the termination of pregnancy.

The court while allowing the woman to terminate pregnancy recognized the reproductive right of the woman and stated: 

“There can be no restriction on a woman’s right to exercise her reproductive choice to either procreate or to abstain from procreating. A woman's right to make reproductive choice being a dimension of her personal liberty, as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been declared in Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Admn [2009(9) SCC 1].”

Case Title: ABC  vs Union of India