REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN INDIA

 Abstract

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, reproductive rights form an essential part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. These rights include the freedom to make free and voluntary reproductive decisions, encompassing procreation, abortion, and access to quality reproductive healthcare. Although there are legal frameworks governing reproduction in India, women are still unable to fully exercise their rights due to various societal barriers.[1]

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Acts of 1971 and 2021 have expanded the scope of reproductive rights by extending the permissible gestational period and ensuring safe access to abortion services, including the maintenance of confidentiality for women seeking abortions. These amendments have significantly transformed the reproductive rights landscape in India.[2]

Introduction

Abortion is a crucial aspect of reproductive rights for women in India. Its legal and social landscape has evolved significantly over the years. Consistent education and awareness regarding these rights are essential for their effective implementation worldwide.

The MTP Act legalized abortion under certain conditions and with medical supervision. However, it has given rise to various social, ethical, and logistical dilemmas, particularly due to the lack of adequate healthcare and sanitation facilities in India. As a developing nation with a wide range of cultures, traditions, and living conditions, India is expected to continue facing these challenges.[3]

Features of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act (MTPAA), 2021[4] 

The MTP (Amendment) Act was passed in response to advancements in medical science that have made abortions safer. It amended the MTP Act, 1971, to increase the upper gestational limit for the termination of pregnancies under certain conditions.

1. Allows termination in cases of failure of contraceptive methods

Termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks is permitted for married women in cases of failure of a contraceptive method or device, and this provision also applies to unmarried women. 

2. Time since conception and requirement for termination

– Within 12 weeks: Approval from one Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP). 

– 12 to 20 weeks: Approval from one RMP. 

– 20 to 24 weeks: Advice from two RMPs for certain categories of pregnant women. 

– More than 24 weeks: Involvement of a Medical Board in cases of fetal abnormality. 

– At any time during pregnancy: Termination permitted if immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.[5]

This Act increases the gestation limit up to 24 weeks for specific groups of women. These include vulnerable groups such as rape survivors, incest victims, and minors. 

3. Medical Boards

– All State and Union Territory governments are required to constitute a Medical Board. 

– The Medical Board has the authority to decide on termination beyond 24 weeks in cases of fetal abnormality. 

– The Board must issue its decision within three days of receiving the request. 

4. Confidentiality

– The name and other particulars of a woman opting for abortion shall remain confidential and may be disclosed only to persons authorized by law. 

Significance of the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021

1. The new law aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by contributing to the reduction of preventable maternal mortality and morbidity rates.
2. SDG 3.1: Reduction of the maternal mortality ratio.
3. SDG 3.7 and 5.6: Guaranteeing universal access to sexual and reproductive healthcare services and rights.
4. These amendments help preserve the dignity and confidentiality of women by ensuring justice for those who choose to terminate their pregnancy.
5. They provide greater reproductive rights to women by enabling easier access to safe abortions.
6. Since abortions are performed by trained practitioners, the amendments significantly reduce deaths and injuries resulting from unsafe procedures.

Fundamental Flaws in the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021

1. The increased gestational limit up to 24 weeks applies only to rape survivors, incest victims, and women with severe psychological disorders. Therefore, women who are not covered under these categories must seek specific permission or face legal ramifications.
2. Women do not have complete autonomy in making decisions regarding the termination of their pregnancy. They must obtain approval from a certified doctor and provide valid reasons for their decision.
3. The exclusion of unmarried women from accessing abortion services creates feelings of shame and guilt, which may lead to suicidal tendencies.
4. Under the new Act, the fundamental right to privacy is protected for pregnant women, whereas previously, no such legal protection existed.
5. The earlier Act did not mandate the formation of a Medical Board. The amended Act introduces such a body to address cases involving fetal abnormalities.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971[6]

Historically, in Indian society, abortion was viewed as a stigma, and the morality of women opting for it was often questioned. It was acceptable only under certain conditions, such as: 

– When the mother suffered from a physical or mental ailment. 

– In cases of sexual assault or rape. 

– When the unborn child was likely to have physical or mental abnormalities. 

Conditions for Termination under the MTP Act, 1971

According to Section 3: 

1. A Registered Medical Practitioner shall incur no liability for performing a termination of pregnancy as mandated by law.
2. The gestational period should not exceed 12 weeks.
3. If the length of pregnancy is more than 12 weeks but less than 20 weeks, termination may be performed under prescribed conditions.
4. Termination is permissible if there is a significant risk of physical or mental abnormality in the unborn child.
5. A girl under the age of 18, or of unsound mind, cannot terminate her pregnancy without the authorization of her parent or guardian.
6. Termination is allowed if the continuation of pregnancy poses a grave risk to the physical or mental health of the woman.

 Shortcomings of the MTP Act, 1971

1. The Act did not permit termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.
2. It failed to achieve its primary objective by restricting a woman’s free will to terminate her pregnancy when necessary.
3. It was criticized for being outdated and failing to reflect contemporary medical advancements, as it was enacted in 1971 when technology was not highly developed.
4. The written consent of a guardian was required if the woman was a minor; in cases of adult women above 18 years, consent was required only if she was of unsound mind.
5. The Act increased the complexity of an already complicated legal procedure.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2002[7]

Facilitating access to abortion services for women working in the private health sector was one of the main objectives of this amendment. 

– A committee was given the authority to decide whether private healthcare establishments could provide abortion services. 

– The basic requirements for performing a termination, such as the specified gestational duration and approved location, had to be strictly complied with under the Act. Failure to comply would attract harsher penalties. 

– Psychological illnesses not amounting to mental disabilities were classified under the term ‘mentally ill person’.

Further amendments were deemed necessary to regulate the operations of private hospitals providing abortion services. As a result, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 were formulated. 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003[8] 

These rules aimed to protect maternal health and reduce the mortality rates of both the mother and the child. 

– The formation of a district-level committee was made compulsory. It was to include at least one woman, gynecologists, and other healthcare professionals to ensure better implementation and decision-making. 

– Approved facilities were required to have the necessary amenities, equipment, and advanced medical technology to perform termination procedures safely. 

– The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) was responsible for visiting and inspecting the sites where abortions were performed to ensure proper sanitation and compliance with prescribed conditions. 

– The CMO could also submit a report on the findings to the committee for further verification. 

Contradicting Case Laws 

• X v Principal Secretary (2022)

In September 2022, the Supreme Court approved the termination of a 22-week pregnancy, affirming that marital status is not a prerequisite for exercising one’s fundamental rights. The Court upheld women’s bodily autonomy and free will, recognizing factors such as career disruption and mental distress as valid considerations. 

• X v Union of India (2003)

In this case, a married woman sought permission to terminate her pregnancy but was denied due to insufficient grounds, such as mental abnormality and suicidal tendencies. She was deemed ineligible under the provisions of the MTP Act.  [9]

Key Issues  

The 2003 case narrowed the interpretation of mental illness, ruling that it was insufficient grounds for termination, thereby restricting women’s bodily autonomy and choice. The requirement for medical approval contradicted the 2022 judgment. 

Conclusion

The MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021 offers hope for many women seeking access to safe abortion services. However, India must further strengthen its legislation to broaden its scope and ensure that benefits extend to a wider category of women. The government must also ensure that all private healthcare facilities are medically equipped and safe for performing pregnancy terminations. 

Additional rules and regulations should be formulated to uphold women’s bodily autonomy, free will, and dignity. Women should not be compelled to justify their reasons to obtain approval from a registered medical practitioner. Mental health conditions such as postpartum depression and other psychological disorders should be recognized as valid grounds for abortion. 

Society should not question the ethics of women choosing abortion, as such judgment fosters guilt and shame. Instead, it should adopt a supportive and progressive outlook. A collective shift in mindset is essential for empowering women to move forward in their personal and professional lives. Although previous shortcomings have been addressed through amendments, further improvements are necessary to ensure that women can fully and freely exercise their reproductive rights. 

References

[1] Harsh Raj and Divya Rani, ‘Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Actions: A Comprehensive Analysis’ (2024) 4 Lex Plus Student Law Review (SDM Law College, Mangalore) <  https://sdmlc.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/LEXPLUS-VOLUME-4-FINAL.pdf > accessed 10 December 2025

[2]  Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College Centre for Post Graduate Studies and Research in Law (Mangalore), ‘Reproductive Rights and Legal Framework Addressing Population Issues’(2025) <  https://sdmlc.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/LAW-BOOK.pdf > accessed 8 December 2025

[3]  Satvik N Pai and Krithi S Chandra, ‘Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of India: Treading the Path between Practical and Ethical Reproductive Justice’ (2023) 48 Indian J Community Med 510

[4] The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act 2021

[5] ‘The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020’ (Mondaq, 28 April 2020) <https://www.mondaq.com/india/healthcare/937694/the-medical-termination-of-pregnancy-amendment-bill-2020> accessed 8 December 2025.

[6] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 (Act No 34 of 1971).

[7] Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act 2002 (Act No 64 of 2002).

[8] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, GSR 485(E), 13 June 2003.

[9] Abortion law in India: A step backward after going forward’ (Supreme Court Observer, 16 November 2023) < https://www.scobserver.in/journal/abortion-law-in-india-a-step-backward-after-going-forward/ > accessed 8 December 2025.