'Bodily autonomy a fundamental right': Delhi High Court allows woman to terminate 22-week pregnancy from live-in relationship

The woman had said that it was an unwanted pregnancy as it was from a live-in relationship and she was worried due to the social stigma and ostracisation she would have to face.

New Delhi: A pregnant woman's bodily autonomy and right of self-determination are an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, the Delhi High Court has observed while allowing a woman to terminate her 22-week pregnancy from a transient live-in relationship.

The court was informed that the 27-year-old woman, though legally married, has been abandoned by her husband and this pregnancy was from a live-in relationship, but her partner has since become untraceable.

The woman, who was nurturing her seven-year-old daughter single-handedly, sought termination of her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

When the woman had approached doctors for termination of pregnancy, they refused as the gestation period was over 20 weeks which is the permissible limit for termination of a foetus.

The high court opined that the continuation of the ongoing pregnancy of the woman poses a risk to her mental well-being considering the reasonably foreseeable environment for both the petitioner and the unborn child.

“As a single mother abandoned by her husband, whose current whereabouts remain unknown, the petitioner faces formidable financial and societal challenges.

"Struggling to support her first child on a limited income, she has made a considered decision to seek the termination of her pregnancy at a gestational age of 22 weeks, invoking the provisions of the MTP Act, as amended in 2021,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

The court said the woman’s plea was also rooted in her fundamental rights under the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and this liberty encompasses the right to make reproductive choices, including termination of pregnancy under conditions that pose a risk to the woman's mental health and well-being.

“The Supreme Court has affirmed these rights, emphasising the importance of considering the woman’s current health, her life’s conditions and her future well-being while making such decisions.

"Therefore, it is clear that a pregnant woman’s bodily autonomy and right of self-determination is an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the high court said.

The woman, in her plea, said on August 8, she felt uneasy and consulted a doctor after which she got to know through an ultrasound scan that she was 21 weeks and 4 days pregnant.

She said that it was an unwanted pregnancy as it was from a live-in relationship and she was worried due to the social stigma and ostracisation she would have to face.

The woman said she comes from a poor background and has serious financial constraints due to which she cannot raise and nurture a second child.

“The instant writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at a medical facility of her choice.

"The counsel for the petitioner has confirmed that she who has joined the proceedings via video conferencing mechanism understands the possible complications of the procedure for termination at this stage. She has nonetheless decided to undergo the procedure at her own risk and consequences,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.

The court referred to a Supreme Court’s decision which held that the interpretation of the MTP Act and Rules must be attuned to the evolving societal norms and further the principles of social justice.

The high court said the apex court’s analysis of Rule 3B of the MTP (Amendment) Rules, 2021, emphasised that this provision acknowledges the profound impact of changes in a woman’s marital status on her life circumstances, which can materially alter during an ongoing pregnancy.

“Such change in circumstances during an ongoing pregnancy has been held to be inclusive of a scenario where the woman has been abandoned by her partner as well as cases where a woman separates from her partner,” it said.

The high court said the petitioner’s plight demonstrated a compelling case of an unwanted pregnancy arising under uniquely challenging circumstances that impose severe distress and hardship.