Pro-Choice, Pro-Women – A split SC verdict reflects a wider judicial-medical confusion about abortion rights

Source: The post is based on the article “Pro-Choice, Pro-Women – A split SC verdict reflects a wider judicial-medical confusion about abortion rights. This must change” published in “The Times of India” on 13th October 2023.

Syllabus: GS2- polity- fundamental rights

News: The article discusses a split decision by India’s Supreme Court on allowing a 26-week abortion. It reflects differing views on women’s rights versus fetal rights and highlights ongoing challenges and inconsistencies in India’s abortion laws and practices.

How abortion laws evolved in India?

Initial Legalization: Abortion became legal in India with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1971. This was a significant move recognizing women’s rights.

Recent Amendments: In 2021, the MTP (Amendment) Act was introduced. This saw changes in the gestational limits for permissible abortions, focusing again on women’s rights and bodily autonomy.

Challenges in the Law: Despite the amendments, certain gaps remain. Abortions in the 20–24-week range have narrowly defined conditions, limiting women’s choices.

Medical Board Requirement: For pregnancies beyond 24 weeks, a medical board’s decision is required. This is problematic, especially in parts of India where even accessing a single doctor is challenging.

What is the issue with the Supreme Court verdict on abortion law?

Conflicting Views on Rights: The Justices hold differing views: Justice BV Nagarathna prioritized the petitioner’s interest, granting permission for abortion, while Justice Hima Kohli denied it, citing concerns for the “viable fetus”. The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, separately highlighted the rights of the unborn child, adding another layer to the existing judicial divergence.

Historical Legal Framework: Abortion laws from 1971 to the 2021 amendment have underscored women’s rights and bodily autonomy. However, the current split verdict and opposite ideas reflect a disconnect and create a confusing legal precedent.

Practical Challenges: The requirement of medical boards for deciding abortion cases beyond 24 weeks becomes a hurdle, as many regions in India struggle with healthcare accessibility, posing real-world problems to implementing the law efficiently.

What should be done?

Clear Legal Stances: The Supreme Court should provide clear, undivided opinions on women’s rights, especially concerning their bodily autonomy and abortion, to avoid legal confusion.

Ensuring Women’s Rights: Judicial and medical practitioners should consistently respect and prioritize women’s decisions and health in every abortion-related case, keeping aligned with historical legal trends.

Accessible Healthcare: Improving healthcare accessibility, especially in regions where even a single doctor is scarce, is crucial to ensure that medical board decisions on abortions are feasible and just.

Law Improvements: Activists have pointed out necessary improvements in the law, like widening the categories for allowable abortions in the 20-24 week range, which should be considered and implemented.

Stronger Verdicts for Women: Courts, especially when approached under Article 32, should rule plainly and strongly in favor of protecting women’s fundamental rights, acting swiftly and even-handedly.