Time to rethink abortion timelines

In the Supreme Court’s ruling that a minor rape survivor cannot be forced to complete her pregnancy against her will, there is a welcome affirmation of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom of individuals that existing laws do not fully recognise.

The Court’s ruling came in a case involving a 15-year-old survivor of rape and the plea to terminate her pregnancy in its 30th week.

Notably, the Court also recommended an amendment to the law to remove the time limit on terminating unwanted pregnancies when it involves minor rape victims.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymala Bagchi refused to entertain a petition filed by the government against the Court’s recent decision to allow the termination of the pregnancy. The government and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) had argued that the pregnancy was advanced, making its termination illegal and raising safety concerns.

The apex court said the decision regarding the termination of pregnancy was for the survivor and her parents to take, not the doctors or the government. It said the government could help the survivor by providing her counsellors. While ruling that unwanted pregnancies cannot be burdened on survivors, the Court underlined the “citizen’s autonomy of choice,” which the State must respect. In its original form, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prescribed a gestational time limit for conducting abortions.

This was done in the interest of the pregnant women’s health. Subsequent amendments extended this time limit – now it is at 24 weeks of gestation – and increased the number of categories under which women could seek abortion. However, opposition to abortions and these amendments has persisted; some of this resistance comes from entrenched societal attitudes.

With its ruling, the Court has emphatically rejected these attitudes. Its message is clear: “Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving times.”

A progressive society cannot base its laws on outdated ideas and attitudes. The legal framework must factor in the complex lived realities of an unwed, minor mother and her child in a patriarchal society. Amending the law will be a critical step towards ensuring real autonomy of choice for her.

The law should accommodate her and protect her dignity as an individual; it cannot be used as a tool to restrict her choices. By prioritising her interests, the Supreme Court has made an important call to abide by constitutional morality, which puts the right to choice of individuals at its centre.