Two judges on Wednesday delivered a split verdict in the case of allowing a married woman to abort her 26-week pregnancy.
A 27-year-old married woman has filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking permission to terminate her 26-week pregnancy. The woman says that she already has two children and is suffering from depression so she is not in a position to raise the third child. The court accepted the woman's demand and allowed the abortion on Monday, October 9. But after this, the central government filed an application on October 10 and requested the court to withdraw the order of October 9.
The Centre has relied on an email sent by a medical board doctor who examined the woman, stating that the unborn baby is fine and is expected to be born alive. If an abortion is done at this time, the baby may be harmed. On Tuesday, the Centre had sought an early hearing mentioning the application before the Chief Justice's bench.
On this, the bench of the Chief Justice ordered to postpone the abortion and sent the Center's application to the bench of Justice Kohli and Justice Nagarathna for hearing.
On Wednesday, a bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice B.B. Nagarathna heard the center's application. After the hearing, the two judges delivered a split verdict and ordered the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice so that they could constitute an appropriate hearing bench. Earlier, during the lengthy hearing on the matter, the bench expressed displeasure over the doctor reporting that the unborn baby was fine after the abortion was ordered.
The court said that it had given the first order after seeing the report of the doctors. Why was that report vague and the second report came two days later? During the hearing, the court also spoke to the petitioner woman and her husband who was virtually connected.
The court told the woman that in the opinion of the doctor, the child is fine and he can also be born alive. At the same time, he also explained the harm caused to the child by having an abortion. The woman was also told that if she stays back for a few more days, the central government or institution will look after the child's upbringing or adoption after birth.
Considering these circumstances, the bench asked the petitioner woman for her opinion but the woman said she did not want to conceive. She has two children and they are also looked after by her mother-in-law as she is not well and is not able to raise a third child.
When asked that the woman had not conceived orally, the court said that she should do so by filing an affidavit as the court does not want any confusion. Later, nothing came to court.
After lunch, when the case came up for hearing again, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the woman saying that she did not want to conceive. The woman also appeared in court. ASG Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the central government, told the court that the decision should be given by considering the child.
However, the petitioner woman's lawyer said that the woman was not in a position to raise the child and hence she did not want to conceive. After a lengthy hearing, the two judges ruled on difference of opinion.
