In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has highlighted a crucial aspect concerning pregnancies surpassing the 24-week mark. The verdict underscores the necessity for a comprehensive evaluation of the physical and mental well-being of the pregnant individual, irrespective of the absence of significant fetal abnormalities.
Crafted by a bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, alongside Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, the ruling accentuates the pivotal role of medical board assessments. These assessments aid the court in adjudicating requests for abortions from individuals whose pregnancies exceed the 24-week threshold. However, it’s imperative to note that Section 3(2B) of the MTP Act allows termination if substantial fetal abnormalities are diagnosed.
In a specific case involving a 28-week pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, the medical board declined termination, citing the absence of substantial fetal abnormalities. Regrettably, the report failed to address the impact of pregnancy on the minor’s physical and mental health, drawing criticism from the Court.
“The report’s oversight in evaluating the pregnant individual’s physical and mental well-being is concerning. It’s essential for the medical board to assess these aspects, especially when a pregnant person meets the conditions under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act,” remarked the Court.
Echoing the sentiment of a previous ruling in XYZ v. State of Gujarat, the judgment emphasized that gestational age alone shouldn’t impede abortion decisions.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the collaborative effort between medical expertise and judicial scrutiny. The medical board’s opinion is pivotal, guiding the court’s decision-making process to safeguard the pregnant person’s well-being.
Under Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, the Court stressed the paramount importance of considering the pregnant individual’s environment in assessing health risks. Upholding fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy, the Court urged medical boards and courts to prioritize these rights.
“The right to choose and reproductive freedom, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, must be upheld,” reiterated the Court.
In a twist, the pregnant minor and her mother chose to proceed with the pregnancy, despite initial approval for termination. Respecting their decision, the Court revoked its previous termination order, affirming the individual’s right to autonomy.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s verdict marks a significant paradigm shift in abortion jurisprudence, emphasizing a holistic approach to pregnancy assessments beyond the 24-week mark.
