<p>The Supreme Court did well to highlight the real import and intent of the law on abortions when it ruled last week that an unmarried women could not be denied the facility of medical termination of pregnancy “solely because the woman is unmarried”. The court allowed a 25-year-old woman to abort her 24-weeks’ pregnancy, overruling a Delhi High Court decision. The woman had come in appeal to the court after the High Court had rejected her petition observing that it “would amount to killing the child”. She had told the court that the pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship, and that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy because her partner had refused to marry her. She also told the court that she feared stigmatisation as a single, unmarried woman. But the court said that it could not allow access to termination of pregnancy between 20-24 weeks for an unmarried woman just because her relationship status changed. It was of the view that the abortion would be illegal in such a situation. </p>.<p>The Supreme Court ruled that “the distinction between a married and unmarried woman has no nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by parliament” through the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. The law should rightly be seen as giving the woman the power over her reproductive life. To allow factors like marital or relationship status to interfere with a woman’s freedom to take her decision is to go against the aim and spirit of the law. The High Court did not recognise the full extent of the agency and autonomy the law bestowed on women and took a paternalistic view of the woman’s right. This is clear from the High Court’s offer to provide the woman a safehouse for delivery of the baby and to give her the choice to put up the baby for adoption. The fact that the law gave the woman the freedom to decide whether she should have the baby or not was overlooked by the court. The only other factor that could influence the decision is the opinion of the doctor, if that was needed. </p>.<p>The MTP Act, 1971, has been interpreted in various ways. It has been seen as a tool in the fight against population growth, a matter concerning pro-life to anti-life positions, or as a legal measure prone to misuse. But the right focus of the law and the amendment that was brought about in 2021, which expanded its scope, is on the woman’s power over her body and on her health. Indians can be proud that they enjoy this power when it is denied to women in many countries, including in the US now. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court did well to highlight the real import and intent of the law on abortions when it ruled last week that an unmarried women could not be denied the facility of medical termination of pregnancy “solely because the woman is unmarried”. The court allowed a 25-year-old woman to abort her 24-weeks’ pregnancy, overruling a Delhi High Court decision. The woman had come in appeal to the court after the High Court had rejected her petition observing that it “would amount to killing the child”. She had told the court that the pregnancy was the result of a consensual relationship, and that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy because her partner had refused to marry her. She also told the court that she feared stigmatisation as a single, unmarried woman. But the court said that it could not allow access to termination of pregnancy between 20-24 weeks for an unmarried woman just because her relationship status changed. It was of the view that the abortion would be illegal in such a situation. </p>.<p>The Supreme Court ruled that “the distinction between a married and unmarried woman has no nexus to the objective sought to be achieved by parliament” through the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. The law should rightly be seen as giving the woman the power over her reproductive life. To allow factors like marital or relationship status to interfere with a woman’s freedom to take her decision is to go against the aim and spirit of the law. The High Court did not recognise the full extent of the agency and autonomy the law bestowed on women and took a paternalistic view of the woman’s right. This is clear from the High Court’s offer to provide the woman a safehouse for delivery of the baby and to give her the choice to put up the baby for adoption. The fact that the law gave the woman the freedom to decide whether she should have the baby or not was overlooked by the court. The only other factor that could influence the decision is the opinion of the doctor, if that was needed. </p>.<p>The MTP Act, 1971, has been interpreted in various ways. It has been seen as a tool in the fight against population growth, a matter concerning pro-life to anti-life positions, or as a legal measure prone to misuse. But the right focus of the law and the amendment that was brought about in 2021, which expanded its scope, is on the woman’s power over her body and on her health. Indians can be proud that they enjoy this power when it is denied to women in many countries, including in the US now. </p>
