Permission of child’s death through a judicial ruling: SC on abortion case

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made pointed remarks while hearing a woman’s request to end a 26-week pregnancy. He questioned whether the petitioner desired a court judgement authorising the killing of the child. The Supreme Court had requested a conversation with the woman’s lawyer and the center’s lawyer, before Friday hearing. According to the […]

Author
Edited By: Sonia Dham
Follow us:

Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud made pointed remarks while hearing a woman’s request to end a 26-week pregnancy. He questioned whether the petitioner desired a court judgement authorising the killing of the child.

The Supreme Court had requested a conversation with the woman’s lawyer and the center’s lawyer, before Friday hearing.

According to the information, the married woman is having her appeal for authorisation to terminate her 26-week pregnancy heard by a three-judge panel under the direction of the Chief Justice of India. The woman, a mother of two, claims to be depressed and is unable, either emotionally or financially, to care for a third kid.

The court had given her the go-ahead to carry on the pregnancy on October 9. The centre then asked for the recall of the order, citing a panel of AIIMS Delhi doctors who had advised against the abortion. A two-judge panel made up of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice BV Nagarathna delivered a divided decision in the case on Wednesday. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India then began debating the issue on Thursday.

Here’s is what the top court said:

The Chief Justice questioned what the woman did for 26 weeks and questioned why she had not requested an abortion earlier. She has already had two kids, right? Why now, you ask?

“Do we issue an order for the child’s death through a judicial ruling?” he continued.

Aishwarya Bhati, who spoke on behalf of the centre, highlighted the doctors’ assessment, which stated that the situation is extremely delicate and sensitive. “The baby is ready to be born. Aborting a foetus just because it is showing signs of life would not be moral. It is necessary to recall the order to abort, she remarked.

The Supreme Court stated that allowing the child to be born and having the government take care of it afterwards was one alternative. It asked the woman if she could hold off on having a conventional birth for a few more weeks. The court emphasised that a hurried delivery at this point could result in the having abnormalities. The Chief Justice declared, “No one will want to adopt if the child is born with deformities now.”