Skip to main content

Abortion Laws in India

 Abortion Laws in India

By Shweta Nair


Abortion is one such subject which has been discussed for several years worldwide. It has a moral side to it as well the side of women’s rights. Talking about the moral side, people since ancient times in India believe that a child is a gift of God and also a living being and therefore aborting a child when it is inside the womb of a mother amounts to murder of a living being which is a crime or an offence. And the other side talks about the rights of women and are confused between the right of a woman to abortion and the right of an unborn child to life who is still in the womb of a woman. 

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides right to life to everyone irrespective of gender, caste, sex, religion. Women in India also have the right to abortion which is guaranteed under the right to privacy originating from right to life and personal liberty. Certainly, a woman’s right to abortion is to be considered superior because a foetus does not have any interest of its own as its still not alive but a woman’s right needs to be protected come what may. It is the woman’s body and a foetus in the womb is a part of woman’s body and therefore she has a right to choose whether to go for abortion or not.

Abortion means intentional termination of pregnancy. It is now legal in India. But it wasn’t so some years back. Prior to 1971, abortion was a crime under section 312 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment of imprisonment for 3 years or fine or with both to those persons who voluntarily cause miscarriage to a woman with child. Imprisonment increases to 7 years in the case where the woman is quick with child. The only exception is for saving the life of a woman, when a miscarriage is done in good faith. 

When abortion started becoming legal in many countries, and a legal framework for induced abortion was initiated in India, there were large number of abortions taking place due to which government asked the committee led by Shanti Lal Shah to draft abortion law. It was only then that the recommendations were taken into consideration and finally an act called as Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in 1970 came into force.

Under The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,1970 (MTP Act), a woman can get an abortion done up to and including 12 weeks but in such a case, the approval of one registered medical practitioner is needed. And if it is after 12 weeks and up to and including 20 weeks, approval of two registered medical practitioners becomes necessary for a valid abortion. Of course, while handling such cases, the doctors need to look into the the conditions for which abortion is allowed while consenting with the procedure of abortion. After 20 weeks, abortion will be allowed if it needs to be done to save the life of a woman. (Here also, the right is still with the doctors and not with the woman though)

What are the conditions permitted for abortion under MTP Act? 

  • If the reason for pregnancy is rape. 

  • If there will be physical or mental abnormalities to the child on birth. 

  • If such pregnancy is harmful to the woman’s physical or mental health or even to her life. 

  • If it has been caused due to failure of contraceptive used by a married woman or by her husband.


Therefore, this act and IPC seems to be against right to life and personal liberty, right to privacy, right to health under Article 21 as only the medical practitioners have the right to decide and not the women. If a case of abortion comes and it doesn’t comply with any of the conditions above, it will be straightaway rejected and ultimately, women have no other option but to seek unsafe abortion methods or attempt suicide. Both of them causing a big risk to the life of woman. 


The MTP Act was later amended and a new Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 2021 has come into force. Several important amendments include- Gestation period being increased to 24 weeks for women who suffered rape, or incest or even differently abled women, approval of one doctor needed for termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks and later from 20 to 24 weeks, two doctor’s approval required, upper gestational limit won’t apply to foetal abnormalities, inclusion of unmarried woman under failure of contraceptive clause to remove the earlier limit of status to married woman only. Nevertheless, the doctor’s or the medical practitioner’s opinion is compulsory and women have not got the right to abortion in its true sense.


Abortion still remains stigmatised in India with huge number of doctors not consenting to it on moral grounds. Abortion Laws need to be more liberalised in India as it is a very critical thing. Many women suffer because of unsafe abortions, due to which maternal mortality has increased. In 2015, about 15.6 million abortions were done in India out of which 78% were done outside health facilities. More than 10 women die daily due to unsafe abortion as reported by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and therefore, it’s of a serious concern. Abortion must be legally permitted to secure basic fundamental rights to woman for which state needs to take appropriate steps.










Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more