Suchita Srivastava & Anr vs Chandigarh Administration

Case Name - Suchita Srivastava & Anr vs Chandigarh Administration

Case Citation - (2009) 9 SCC 1

Parties Involved -

Bench -

Relevant Acts and Sections -

The victim is an orphan woman suffering from mild mental retardation, aged about 19-20 years was found pregnant, allegedly a rape victim, in a Government-run welfare institution. The Administration (respondent) approached the High Court seeking an order for the termination of pregnancy. The High Court after calling for reports from two Expert Committees ordered the termination of the victim's pregnancy. Termination of pregnancy was recommended by the First Expert Committee whereas the second committee recommended otherwise. By the time the appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, the victim's pregnancy had reached 19 weeks as against the limit of 20 weeks prescribed in Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (the MTP Act), for termination of pregnancy. The victim had expressed her willingness for the continuation of her pregnancy.

Whether it was legally permissible to terminate the victim's pregnancy even when she had not given consent for it?
Whether it was in the victim's best interest to terminate her pregnancy or to continue it?

The victim's choice of bearing the child should be respected as a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The MTP Act, under section 3, states that the consent of the pregnant woman is an essential requirement for proceeding with the termination of pregnancy. The exceptions laid down in the Act, where the consent should be given by the guardian in cases where the pregnant woman is below eighteen years of age or is a 'mentally ill' person, are not applicable. As the victim’s physical age of the victim is around 19-20 years which shows that she is not a minor.
Moreover, her condition has been described as that of ‘mild mental retardation’ is clearly different from the condition of a ‘mentally ill person’ as contemplated by S. 3(4) (a) of the Act. The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, also states the same.
As per the findings, the victim is physically capable of continuing with the pregnancy and the possible risks to her physical health and there is no indication that the child might be born with any congenital defects. Hence, the victim should be allowed to carry the pregnancy and bear a child.

Arguments of the Respondent

The appellant had limited understanding of the idea of pregnancy and may not have the mental capacity to cope with the demands of carrying the pregnancy to its full term and take the responsibilities of a mother.
The medical experts who appeared before the court viewed that maternal responsibilities entail a certain degree of physical, emotional and social burdens and it was proper for the medical experts to decide whether the victim is capable of handling them.
There is a possibility of the victim changing her opinion in future regarding her willingness to bear the child since she was also found to be highly suggestible.

The Supreme Court by reversing the High Court order for termination of pregnancy held -
The legislative intent is to provide qualified “right to abortion”, and termination of pregnancy has never been recognised as a normal recourse for expecting mothers. There is also a “compelling state interest” in protecting the life of a prospective child. Termination of pregnancy is therefore permitted only when conditions specified in the Act are fulfilled. The Act provides reasonable restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive choices. Though termination of pregnancy by the consent of a pregnant woman is an essential requirement, Sections 3(4)(a) and 5(1) create exceptions to the rule of pregnant woman's consent, namely, when a pregnant woman is below 18 years or is mentally ill, guardian's consent is required, or when a registered medical practitioner forms an opinion in good faith that abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother. However, none of the exceptions applies in the present case. Hence, the court keeping in mind the restrictions laid down in MTP Act, overruled High Court’s decision.

For a simpler understanding, refer to the article " Is Abortion Legal in India?” by clicking the button below.

Related Posts