Forcing woman to continue pregnancy violates bodily integrity: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that forcing a woman to continue with her pregnancy “violates her bodily integrity” and “aggravates mental trauma”.

The court passed the judgement on January 6 while discharging a woman in a criminal case filed by her estranged husband for medically terminating her 14-week foetus.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna noted the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act did not require a pregnant woman to obtain the husband’s permission for termination of pregnancy, and the “golden thread” running through the enactment was the concern for “grave injury” to a woman’s physical as well as mental health.

Medically, the term ‘golden thread’ refers to a cohesive and continuous flow of information that connects all aspects of patient care.

“If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would be deleterious to her mental health,” said the court.

‘Not an offence’

“When the apex court, in its judgments, has recognised the autonomy of a woman to seek abortion in the situation of a marital discord which can impact her mental health, and also the provision of Section 3 MTP Act and the Rules framed therein, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code [punishment for causing miscarriage] was committed by the petitioner,” the court observed.

The woman had challenged a sessions court order which upheld her summoning before a magisterial court for the offence under Section 312 IPC (punishment for causing miscarriage).

She contended that her reproductive autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution had been criminalised and her lawful exercise of fundamental right to privacy, bodily integrity and decisional liberty was overlooked.

The husband, on the other hand, argued that since on the date of abortion, the couple was living together and therefore had no marital discord, the provisions of the MTP Act would not be applicable.

The court, however, rejected the contention and said marital discord could not be “overstretched” to mean that it exists only after the parties have separated and gone into litigation.

In this case, the reason given by the wife in her OPD card showed that she already felt the stress of marriage and had made a decision to separate from her husband.