Court Reviews Petition for Termination of Pregnancy
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday raised an important question regarding the reproductive rights of women with intellectual disabilities, asking whether such women are denied the right to motherhood. This query arose while hearing a petition filed by a 27-year-old woman’s father, who sought permission to terminate her 21-week pregnancy, citing her intellectual disability and unmarried status.
The petitioner claimed his daughter wished to continue the pregnancy, leading the court to involve a medical board from JJ Hospital in Mumbai for a detailed evaluation.
Medical Report Highlights Key Findings
The medical board’s report, submitted to the court, revealed that the woman is not mentally unsound but has borderline intellectual disability, with an IQ of 75. The report stated:
- Foetus Health: No abnormalities or anomalies were detected.
- Mother’s Fitness: The woman was deemed medically fit to continue the pregnancy.
- Termination Possibility: While termination was medically feasible, the woman’s consent remained crucial.
The court observed that the woman had not undergone psychological counselling but had been on medication since 2011.
Consent Is Paramount, Says Court
Additional Government Pleader Prachi Tatke emphasized that the woman’s consent is critical in deciding the course of action. The bench agreed, noting that the medical board clearly distinguished borderline intellectual disability from mental illness.
“Just because she has below-average intelligence, does she have no right to be a mother? If persons with below-average intelligence were denied parenting rights, it would violate the law,” the court asserted.
Exploring Alternatives
The petitioner informed the court that the woman had disclosed the identity of the man responsible for the pregnancy. The bench advised the parents to meet the man and explore whether he was willing to marry her.
“As parents, take the initiative and talk to the man. They are both adults. It is not an offence,” the court remarked.
The bench also acknowledged the parents’ role in adopting the woman as a five-month-old infant and encouraged them to fulfill their parental duties.
Next Hearing Scheduled
The court has scheduled the next hearing for January 13, providing time for discussions between the parents and the man involved.
This case highlights the importance of respecting individual rights and making nuanced decisions that consider both legal and ethical aspects of reproductive autonomy.
