The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued notice to the Union Government in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of medical termination of pregnancy beyond life-threatening circumstances, calling into question Section 3(2) and Explanation 1 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry directed the Union Government to file its response and listed the matter for further hearing on September 16.
The PIL, filed by Haryana resident Deepak Kumar, argues that Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, presuming that pregnancy resulting from rape causes grave mental injury to the woman, is arbitrary, disproportionate, and violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner urged the Court to declare such presumptions and associated provisions unconstitutional, except in cases where the life of the woman or fetus is in imminent danger.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Pankaj Nanhera contended that the statute permits Registered Medical Practitioners (RMPs) trained in gynaecology and obstetrics to terminate pregnancies on the basis of mental health implications, despite not being psychiatrists. He argued that such practitioners lack the expertise to evaluate mental health and thus, cannot be the sole authority to determine if the continuation of pregnancy would cause "grave injury" to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
The plea also raised serious concerns about the misuse of this provision in facilitating illegal sex-selective abortions. It alleged that after conducting unlawful sex determination tests, some individuals exploit Section 3 of the MTP Act to terminate female fetuses under the guise of mental health risk, effectively undermining the objectives of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.
Countering the petition, Senior Panel Counsel Dheeraj Jain, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that it is not the psychiatric condition but the effect of the pregnancy on the woman’s mental state that is assessed by the gynaecologist. Therefore, the involvement of a psychiatrist is not legally or medically required under the Act.
He further asserted that the right to reproductive autonomy, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy, is a fundamental right under Article 21. The counsel relied on recent Supreme Court rulings, X v. State (NCT of Delhi) and A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, to support the proposition that reproductive choice is an essential facet of individual dignity and personal liberty.
Picture Source :
