SC issues notice on plea contending 'abortion violates right to life'

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central government on a plea challenging abortion of foetus, due to various reasons, violated right to life of the yet-to-be-born

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central government on a plea challenging provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, as as allowing abortion of foetus, due to various reasons, violated right to life of the yet-to-be-born.

A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravi Kumar sought reply from the Central government on a petition filed by 'Cry for Life Society' and others.

Petitioners challenged the validity of the Kerala High Court's order of June 9, 2020 which declined to entertain their plea. In the apex court, the petitioners contended that their plea raises substantial questions of law in relation to the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The petitioners, led by senior advocate K. Radhakrishnan and advocate John Mathew, contended that abortion would violate the right to life and the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the yet to be born is violated by the said provisions of the MTP Act.

"This court in Suchita Srivastava and Anr v/s Chandigarh Administration, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1, though while dealing with the right of a woman to make reproductive choices, did specifically recognise the compelling state interest in protecting the life of the prospective child in case of a pregnant woman," said the plea.

The plea contended that once the child is formed, it acquires all rights of a human being and is entitled to all protection afforded to every citizen of India, including right to life and property, the only exception is when it becomes a risk or threat to the life of the mother.

The plea added, "the High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition concluding that the validity of Section-3 (2) was upheld by this court in its letter and spirit in the decisions of this court and relied on by the High Court in the impugned judgment, when the validity and the vires were not actually under challenge in those cases before this court.

--IANS

ss/vd