Judgments

SUCHITA SRIVASTAVA VS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION: CASE SUMMARY

The Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 13 SCR 989   held that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty”  as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The victim had become pregnant as a result of rape committed on her which she was inmate at a government run welfare institution located at Chandigarh. The Chandigarh administration approached High Court seeking approval for termination of pregnancy on the ground that she was mentally retarded as well as an orphan. High Court appointed an expert body for inquiry into the facts. On 17.07.2009, the High Court directed for termination of pregnancy in spite of Expert Body’s findings that the victim had expressed her willingness to bear a child.

THE FINDINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court considered two aspects – Firstly, whether it was correct for the High Court to direct termination of pregnancy without consent of the woman ? and Secondly, whether a woman is unable to take an informed decision what is appropriate standard for parens patriae jurisdiction of a Court ?

The Supreme Court disagreed with the view of the High Court as the victim had clearly expressed her willingness to bear the child. Her reproductive choice should be respected in spite of other factors such as the lack of understanding of the sexual act as well as apprehensions about her capacity to carry the pregnancy to its full term and the assumption of maternal responsibilities thereafter. The supreme noted that Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 provides that consent has to be taken even from mentally retarded woman.

The Supreme Court observed that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty”  as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognize that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well to abstain from procreating.  The crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman’s right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilization procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children.  

The Supreme Court observed that however there is also compelling state interest in protecting life of the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence provisions of MTP Act can also be said to be reasonable restrictions on exercise of reproductive choices.

The Supreme Court noted that the woman is a major. She is only mentally retarded not mentally ill.

The Supreme Court observed  that High Court had acted in its parens patriae jurisdiction. Traditionally this jurisdiction has been invoked in cases of minors and persons who are unable to take informed choices. Courts in other jurisdictions have developed “best interest test “ and “substituted judgment test”  in making decision on behalf of mentally retarded persons.

The Court concluded that the victim’s pregnancy cannot be terminated without her consent and proceedings with the same would not have served her “best interests”.

_____________________________________

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman

Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate based at Delhi. He has rich experience in civil, criminal, commercial, arbitration and corporate insolvency matters. He regularly appears before District Courts, NCLT, NCLAT, High Court and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *