Right to Terminate Pregnancy: A Landmark Judgment on Women’s Reproductive Autonomy

The case of Meera Santosh Pal vs. Union of India brought before the Supreme Court of India raises significant questions about reproductive rights and the legal framework governing medical termination of pregnancy. The petitioner, Meera Santosh Pal, a 22-year-old woman, sought permission from the court to terminate her pregnancy due to severe fetal abnormalities.

Background of the Case

Meera Santosh Pal approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy. Medical examinations had diagnosed her fetus with Anencephaly, a congenital defect where the skull does not develop properly, making survival impossible beyond birth. The petitioner argued that carrying the pregnancy to full term posed a significant risk to her physical and mental health.

Medical Examination and Findings

The Supreme Court ordered a medical examination by a seven-member Medical Board, which included experts from various disciplines such as obstetrics, psychiatry, anesthesia, radiology, and general medicine. The Medical Board confirmed:

• The fetus suffered from Anencephaly, making survival beyond birth impossible.
• The petitioner was in her 24th week of pregnancy.
• Continuation of the pregnancy could gravely endanger the petitioner’s physical and mental health.
• The risk of termination was within acceptable medical limits.

Legal Considerations

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, abortion is legally permissible up to 20 weeks of gestation. However, in exceptional circumstances where carrying the pregnancy poses a serious risk to the mother’s life or the fetus has fatal abnormalities, courts have allowed medical termination beyond 20 weeks.

Judgment of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, after considering the medical reports and the petitioner’s informed decision, ruled in favor of granting permission for termination. The court relied on the landmark judgment in Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009), which recognized a woman’s right to reproductive choices as part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court observed:

• “A woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
• The medical evidence clearly indicated that continuing the pregnancy posed a risk to the petitioner’s health.
• Since the fetus would not survive outside the womb, compelling the petitioner to carry the pregnancy to term would be unjust.
• The petitioner had the full support of her husband and had made an informed decision regarding termination.

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the fundamental rights of women over their own bodies, particularly in cases involving fatal fetal abnormalities. It underscores the need for a flexible legal framework that prioritizes women’s health and well-being while addressing medical advancements in fetal diagnosis.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Meera Santosh Pal vs Union of India Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-01-2017.pdf