An unmarried woman, who has been refused permission by the Delhi High Court to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at 23 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship, Wednesday again moved the Supreme Court seeking an urgent listing of her appeal.
A bench comprising Chief Justice N. V. Ramana and justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli was urged by a counsel for the woman that the matter has not been listed today as every passing day is important for her.
“I have ordered its listing. It will come tomorrow,” the CJI said. The plea was mentioned on Tuesday as well seeking its hearing on Wednesday.
The High Court had denied the permission to abort saying that it virtually amounts to killing the foetus.
In an order issued on July 16, a Delhi High Court bench refused to grant permission to the woman to abort the 23-week foetus, saying it is not permitted under the abortion law after 20 weeks for pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.
The High Court, however, sought the Centre’s response on the woman’s contention that the exclusion of unmarried women from being allowed to undergo medical termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks, was discriminatory.
The petitioner, a 25-year-old woman, had told the court that her partner, with whom she was in a consensual relationship, had refused to marry her.
She had stressed that giving birth outside the wedlock would cause her psychological agony as well as social stigma and she was not mentally prepared to be a mother.
The High Court, while dealing with the plea, had said the court cannot go beyond the statute while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
“The petitioner, who is an unmarried woman and whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003,” the High Court noted in its order dated July 15.
“As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (which excludes unmarried women) stands, and this court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the statute,” it had said.
Before passing the order, the High Court had suggested that the petitioner can be kept “somewhere safe” until she delivers the child who can subsequently be given up for adoption.
“We will ensure that the girl is kept somewhere safe and she can deliver and go. There is a big queue for adoption,” the court had said.
After the lawyer turned down the court’s suggestion, it said that it would pass an order on the petition.