supreme court judgement for abortion in 2023
Impacting a woman’s freedom to reproductive choices
एक्स बनाम भारत संघ मामले में निर्णय, जो अजन्मे बच्चे को कोई स्पष्ट अधिकार प्रदान करने में विफल रहता है, त्रुटियों से ग्रस्त है
On October 16, in X vs Union of India, the Supreme Court of India
1 declined permission to a woman who was seeking to terminate a 26 week-long pregnancy.
2 A Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), D.Y. Chandrachud, held that the woman’s case is outside of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971
3 The Court said termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks only in cases where the foetus exhibited :
🌺substantial abnormality,
🌺 or where the woman’s life was under direct threat.
Here, doctors would have to terminate a “viable foetus”, the Court rejected the plea to exercise its extraordinary powers.
Viable foetus versus woman’s right
its conclusion is just that:
🌺when a foetus becomes viable,
🌺 and is capable of surviving outside the mother’s uterus,
🌺 the woman’s right to choose stands extinguished,
🌺barring circumstances where the specific conditions outlined in the MTP Act are met.
judgment suffers from at least two errors
The first stems from the Court’s failure of questions to resolving the dispute:
🌺Does a foetus enjoy an autonomous moral status?
🌺Does it have legal standing?
🌺 Is it capable of exercising constitutional rights?
But निर्णय
इन सवालों से जुड़ा नहीं है और परिणामस्वरूप, भ्रूण के अधिकारों को एक गर्भवती महिला के उसकी गोपनीयता और गरिमा के अधिकारों से ऊपर रखता है।.
Second, the Court fails to examine whether the MTP Act is merely an enabling legislation
1 Does the statute facilitate the exercise of a fundamental right?
क्या क़ानून मौलिक अधिकार के प्रयोग की सुविधा देता है?
2 Or, do its exemptions constitute a conferral of rights in and by themselves?
या, क्या इसकी छूटें अपने आप में अधिकारों का प्रदत्तीकरण है
3 Have these questions were in mind ,like a woman ought to be allowed to terminate her pregnancy outside the terms spelled out in the legislation.
4 If the right to freely make reproductive choices is fundamental, flowing from the Constitution, the Court ought to scarcely feel injuncted from issuing directions beyond the MTP Act’s remit.
यदि स्वतंत्र रूप से प्रजनन विकल्प चुनने का अधिकार मौलिक है, जो संविधान से प्राप्त होता है, तो न्यायालय को एमटीपी अधिनियम के दायरे से परे निर्देश जारी करने से शायद ही कोई रोक महसूस होनी चाहिए।
अब तक की कहानी महिला का पक्ष
1 Consider the facts. The petitioner, a 27-year-old married woman, X, with two children, the youngest barely a year old, wants her pregnancy terminated.
2 She became aware of her pregnancy only 20 weeks in, as she had lactational amenorrhea — a condition in which women who are breastfeeding have amenorrhea, that is not menstruating.
3 The petitioner submitted before the Court that when she ultimately underwent an ultrasound scan (owing to symptoms of nausea and abdominal discomfort), she was found to be 24 weeks pregnant.
Petitioner’s plea’s and rulings
Women give two arguments:
1 one, she submitted, that she was suffering from post-partum depression and her mental condition did not allow her to raise another child;
2 and two, her husband, she said, was the only earning member of the family and they could ill-afford to care for a third child.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने क्या देखा ?
1 on October 9, the Court, on examining a report submitted by a medical board constituted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences ruled in her favour.
2 support for women
To allow the pregnancy to continue, a Bench comprising Justices Hima Kohli and B.V. Nagarathna held, could have a serious bearing on the petitioner’s mental health.
न्यायमूर्ति हिमा कोहली और न्यायमूर्ति बी.वी. नागरत्ना की खंडपीठ ने कहा कि गर्भावस्था को जारी रखने की अनुमति देने से याचिकाकर्ता के मानसिक स्वास्थ्य पर गंभीर प्रभाव पड़ सकता है।
3 But, on the following day, the Union government went back to Court and said that one of the members on the medical board had written in,
asking for a clarification on whether the termination could go ahead, given the viable status of the foetus.
But in next hearing
1 Justice Kohli said her “judicial conscience” did not allow her to permit an abortion.
2 Justice Nagarathna held that the petitioner’s decision must be respected.
The woman’s choice, she ruled, was paramount, and her right to reproductive health included a right to an abortion.
What is more, a foetus, she found, is “dependant on the mother and cannot be recognised as an individual personality from that of its mother as its very existence is owed to the mother”.
3 This impasse between the two judges led to the constitution of a separate Bench presided over by the CJI.
दोनों न्यायाधीशों के बीच इस गतिरोध के कारण सीजेआई की अध्यक्षता में एक अलग पीठ का गठन किया गया
4 A new report from the medical board confirmed that the
🌺 foetus was viable
🌺and had no abnormalities,
🌺and that the medication that the petitioner was on would not in any way endanger the pregnancy.
🌺Given that neither of the exemptions available under the MTP Act were met, the Court now ruled that its earlier order had to be recalled.
इससे किस पर असर पड़ सकता है ?
1 But in ruling this way, the verdict wil hit fundamental rights to privacy and dignity.
2 Puttaswamy, held that the right to privacy — implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution —
🌺enabled individuals to exercise autonomy over their body and mind,
🌺and allowed women complete freedom to make reproductive choices.
3 There, Justice Chandrachud wrote, “…In case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health.
4 Article 21 of the Constitution recognizes and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake
5 . Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion.”
6 The judgment further found that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State sprang out of the very idea of human dignity.
Foetuses and rights
Even more damaging, though, is the judgment’s implicit assertion that foetuses have constitutional rights.
Our jurisprudence on abortion has been built on a converse premise.
The guarantees of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution — the rights to equal protection and life — are conferred on persons, and the Constitution decidedly does not award personhood to a foetus.
जैसा कि होता है, एमटीपी अधिनियम भी ऐसा कोई दावा नहीं करता है। यदि ऐसा होता, तो यह उन मामलों के लिए निर्धारित समय-सीमा से अपवाद नहीं बना सकता जहां एक गर्भवती महिला का जीवन तत्काल और प्रत्यक्ष खतरे में है।
जैसा कि न्यायमूर्ति नागरत्ना कहते हैं
हमारे संवैधानिक ढांचे में भ्रूण को मां पर निर्भर होने के अलावा किसी और चीज के रूप में देखने के लिए कोई जगह नहीं है।
इसे एक अलग, विशिष्ट व्यक्तित्व के रूप में देखना उस पर अधिकारों का एक सेट प्रदान करने के समान होगा जो संविधान किसी अन्य वर्ग के व्यक्ति को नहीं देता है।
ऐसा पढ़ना उस न्यायशास्त्र को पूरी तरह से नष्ट कर देगा जो एक महिला को प्रजनन विकल्प चुनने की स्वतंत्रता को प्रधानता देता है - एक अधिकार जो संविधान के अनुच्छेद 14 और 21 में अंतर्निहित है।
Source the hindu
Comments
Post a Comment