SC notice to Centre on rape victim’s plea against abortion law

She has sought direction to quash section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 to the extent that it puts a ceiling of 20 weeks on abortion, which is unreasonable, arbitrary, harsh, discriminatory and violative of the right to life and equality. The bench said that the medical board’s report with regard to the woman’s condition will be assessed and, if necessary, some directions will be passed. The woman said her boyfriend had raped her on the promise of marriage only to ditch her and marry someone else. The foetus also has anencephaly, a birth defect in which a baby is born without parts of the skull and brain. In 2008, the Bombay High Court refused a petition by Niketa Mehta for abortion of a 26-week foetus with a serious heart defect.

Ms X is seeking to terminate a 24-week old pregnancy owing to abnormal growth of foetus. Should a rape victim, that too a minor, be forced to bear a child conceived from that incident even if she does not want to?

Some medical experts in India have been recommending that abortions be allowed beyond 20 weeks.

The Indian abortion laws falls under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, which was enacted by the Parliament earlier in 1971 with the intention of reducing the incidents of illegal abortion and consequent maternal mortality and morbidity. At the time, a doctor told DNA, “We generally ask a patient to undergo tests around the 18th week to find abnormalities”.

Earlier, the Supreme Court had said that it will hold an urgent hearing on the plea on Thursday.

The woman-petitioner claimed a ceiling of 20 weeks for an abortion put under the law was ultra vires to Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner also cited a recent proposal from National Commission for Women for amendment of the MTP Act to provide for abortion where “pregnant woman is minor, pregnancy is result of rape or incest, pregnant woman is physically or mentally challenged, continuance of pregnancy would involve risk to the mother, foetus suffering grave abnormalities”.

Whose life should take precedence – the life of the mother, or that of the child? The petitioner has sought that the relevant section must be declared unconstitutional or read it thoroughly.