![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article outlines the structural barriers to abortions in India, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing lockdowns. It discusses the limits to access inherent within India’s abortion law, strict state-imposed pandemic management measures, the unequal public healthcare system, and resultant systemic coercion of pregnant persons to approach courts to seek abortions. It reviews abortion-related cases to argue that the judiciary’s neglect of its responsibilities during the pandemic has been mirrored in its lack of willingness to realize the reproductive rights of pregnant persons requiring abortions during and after the pandemic. Cases are examined using the legal indeterminacy framework to understand how abortion laws overlook pregnant persons’ autonomy. These laws have relied on stereotypes, betraying the underlying paternalistic and protectionist rationale of the judiciary. The judiciary has assumed the role of ultimate arbiter in determining what constitutes a “good” or “bad” abortion and who is deemed deserving of abortion access.
Acknowledgments
We thank Saptarshi Mandal and Shiv Swaminathan for their review of the draft. The paper benefitted immensely from their comments. We also thank Natasha Aggarwal for their excellent research and editorial assistance in the final stages of the paper. We want to acknowledge Abhaya Tatavarti, Anmol Ratan and Rudra for their research assistance in the initial stages of the draft. We are grateful to the editorial team of Indian Law Review for their editorial support, especially Professor Garg, Balu Nair, Karan Gulati and Vandita Khanna and the anonymous peer reviewers for their constructive comments on our drafts that substantially improved our paper. Finally, we express our gratitude to Dr C Rajkumar for their institutional support.
In this article, we consistently use the term “pregnant person”. However, when referring to legal provisions that specifically mention “woman,” we retain that terminology. Additionally, while Indian law considers everyone below 18 years of age as a “minor” or a “child”, it is important to distinguish between a “minor” or a “child” and an “adolescent”, which is the phase of life between childhood and adulthood, from ages 10 to 19.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v State of Maharashtra, WP-ASDB-LD-VC-24 of 2020 (Order dated 2 June 2020).
2 ibid.
3 ibid.
4 Rubina Kasam Phansopkar v State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 765.
5 ibid.
6 Press Trust of India, ‘Age, Unpreparedness Not Valid Grounds for Abortion: Bombay HC Denies Nod to 38-year-old Married Woman’ (News18, 7 July 2020) <https://www.news18.com/news/india/age-unpreparedness-not-valid-grounds-for-abortion-bombay-hc-denies-nod-to-38-year-old-married-woman-2705587.html> accessed 20 August 2022.
7 Rubina Kasam Phansopkar v State of Maharashtra (n 4).
8 ibid 27.
9 ibid.
10 ibid 28.
11 ibid 27.
12 The MTP Act 1971, s 5.
13 Steven L Winter, ‘Indeterminacy and Incommensurability in Constitutional Law’ [1990] 78(6) California Law Review 1441. CLS is an internal movement within the field of law, characterized as a philosophical hybrid drawing on the theories of different philosophical traditions, including Marxism, the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, and Post-Structuralism. On CLS in general, see Alan Hunt, ‘The Theory of Critical Legal Studies’ [1986] 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 1. See also Mark Kelman, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies (Harvard University Press 1989). CLS is not a Marxist movement, and many writers spend time attacking some aspect of classical or scientific Marxism. See, for example, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, Social Theory: Its Situation and Its Task (Cambridge University Press 1987); Robert Gordon, ‘Critical Legal Histories’ [1985] 36 Stanford Law Review 57; David Kairys, ‘Introduction’ in David Kairys (ed), The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique (Pantheon Books 1982).
14 Frank Upham, ‘Mythmaking in the Rule of Law Orthodoxy’ (2002), reprinted in Thomas Carothers (ed), Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2006) 75, 92.
15 Brian Bix, A Dictionary of Legal Theory (Oxford University Press 2004) 97.
16 Robert Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation (Ruth Adler and Neil MacCormick trs, OUP 2009).
17 Duncan Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Classical Legal Thought (Beard Books 2006).
18 Duncan Kennedy, ‘Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy’ [1982] 32 Journal of Legal Education 591.
19 Shreya Singhal v Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 1523.
20 ibid [82].
21 John Hasnas, ‘Back to the Future: From Critical Legal Studies Forward to Legal Realism, Or How Not to Miss the Point of the Indeterminacy Argument’ [1995] 45 Duke Law Journal 84.
22 Union of India v R Gandhi, 2010 (5) SCALE 514.
23 Rishabh Shah and CC Nageshwaran, ‘Union of India v Gandhi: Hard Case, Soft Law’ [2011–2012] 5 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law 219.
24 Sai Ramani Garimella, ‘Caste-Based Violence: The Indeterminacy in the Law’ [2016] 58(2) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 234, 237.
25 A sessions court is a trial court that is empowered to hear criminal cases.
26 Garimella (n 24) 238.
27 ibid.
28 ibid.
29 ibid.
30 Anand Teltumbde, The Persistence of Caste: The Khairlanji Murders and India’s Hidden Apartheid (Zed Books 2010).
31 ibid 98.
32 Bhanwari Devi’s caste denomination was Kumhar – a potter caste legally categorized as a backward class in India.
33 Vishaka and Ors v State of Rajasthan and Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241. See also Rakesh Shukla, “Judicial Pronouncements and Caste” (2006) 41 (42) Economic and Political Weekly 4411; Sumit Baudh, “Demarginalizing the intersection of caste, class, and sex” (2021) 20(2) Journal of Human Rights 127.
34 Shukla (n 33); Baudh (n 33).
35 Tanja Herklotz and Siddharth Peter de Souza, ‘Introduction’ in Tanja Herklotz and Siddharth Peter de Souza (eds), Mutinies for Equality: Contemporary Developments in Law and Gender in India (Cambridge University Press 2021) 6.
36 Dipika Jain, ‘Beyond Bars, Coercion and Death: Rethinking Abortion Rights and Justice in India’ [2024] 14(1) Oñati Socio-Legal Series 99.
37 Ken Kress, ‘Legal Indeterminacy’ [1989] 77 California Law Review 283.
38 Sreeparna Chattopadhyay, ‘Gendering Legal Discourse: A Critical Feminist Analysis of Domestic Violence Adjudication in India’ [2016] 2 Law, Social Justice & Global Development 1, 6.
39 Edsel Tupaz, ‘Dialogical-Republican Revival: Respect-Worthy Constitutionalism in Post-Conflict Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Southern Philippines’ [2008] 54(3) Wayne Law Review 1295, 1336.
40 Indian Penal Code 1860, s 312.
41 The MTP Act 1971.
42 Dipika Jain, ‘Time to Rethink Criminalisation of Abortion? Towards a Gender Justice Approach’ [2019] 12 NUJS Law Review 1; Pritam Potdar and others, ‘If a woman has even one daughter, I refuse to perform the abortion: Sex determination and safe abortion in India’ [2015] 23(45) Reproductive Health Matters 114.
43 The MTP Amendment Act, s 3.
44 X v Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department and Another, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 12,612 of 2022 (Order dated 29 September 2022).
45 ibid.
46 ibid [16].
47 ibid [90]–[94].
48 Dipika Jain and Shampa Sengupta, ‘Reproductive rights and disability rights through an intersectional analysis’ [2021] 12 Jindal Global Law Review 337, 340–342.
49 ibid 341.
50 ibid 338.
51 Union Territories are administrative divisions in India, which are federal territories partially or totally governed by the Union Government of the country.
52 Meenaz Kakalia, ‘Abortion in India – still not a right but a privilege’ (The Leaflet, 03 May 2021) <https://theleaflet.in/abortion-in-india-still-not-a-right-but-a-privilege/> accessed 20 August 2022.
53 Dipika Jain, ‘MTP Bill’s proposal for a bureaucracy to vet abortions is ill-judged and impractical’ (Indian Express, 11 February 2021) <https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/mtp-bills-proposal-for-a-bureaucracy-to-vet-abortions-is-ill-judged-and-impractical-7183300/lite/> accessed 5 January 2023; Dipika Jain and others, ‘medical boards for Access to Abortion Untenable: Evidence from the Ground’ (Centre for Justice, Law and Society, 2021) <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61c2f36a329cfe4aa53a49d7/t/62a62302ff719e1864442af3/1655055138071/CJLS_Medical_Boards_Report_Final.pdf> accessed 20 August 2022.
54 ibid.
55 Tanuja v Union of India, 2020 SCC Online Bom 596.
56 Ms Z v The State of Bihar and Others, Civil Appeal No 10,463 of 2017.
57 ibid [3].
58 Dipika Jain and others, ‘Legal Barriers to Abortion Access During the COVID-19 Pandemic in India – One Year at a Glance’ Centre for Justice, Law and Society (CJLS) Jindal Global Law School (March 2021).
59 Jain (n 42).
60 LMR v Argentina, Human Rights Committee, Communication No 1608/2007, UN Doc CCPR/C/101/D/1608/2007 (2011).
61 ibid.
62 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No 22 (2016) on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (02 May 2016) UN Doc E/C12/GC/22 <http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=4slQ6QSmlBEDzFEovLCuW1a0Szab0oXTdImnsJZZVQfQejF41Tob4CvIjeTiAP6sGFQktiae1vlbbOAekmaOwDOWsUe7N8TLm%2BP3HJPzxjHySkUoHMavD%2Fpyfcp3Ylzg> accessed 26 September 2022.
63 Dipika Jain and Payal K Shah, ‘Reimagining Reproductive Rights Jurisprudence in India: Reflections on the Recent Decisions on Privacy and Gender Equality from the Supreme Court of India’ (2020) 39(2) Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 1.
64 Anubha Rastogi, ‘Assessing the Judiciary’s Role in Access to Safe Abortion-II’ (The Pratigya Campaign, September 2020) <https://pratigyacampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/assessing-the-role-of-judiciary-in-access-to-safe-abortion-II.pdf> accessed 19 September 2022.
65 This is a single High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana.
66 Bashir Khan v State of Punjab and Another, 2014 SCC OnLine P&H 24,801 [6].
67 ibid.
68 Rastogi (n 64).
69 ibid.
70 Jain (n 42).
71 ibid.
72 ibid.
73 Simon Bronitt, ‘No Records. No Time. No Reason’ [1996] 8(2) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 130, 134.
74 Rosemary Hunter and Kathy Mack, ‘Exclusion and Silence’ in Ngaire Naffine and Rosemary Owens (eds), Sexing the Subject of Law (LBC Information Services 1997) 52.
75 Jessica Kennedy and Patrica Easteal, ‘Shades of grey: indeterminacy and sexual assault law reform’ [2011] 13(2) Flinders Law Journal 49.
76 John Francis Dovidio and others, ‘Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Overview’ in John Francis Dovidio and others (eds), The Sage Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination (SAGE Publishing 2010) 3.
77 Alexandra Timmer, ‘Judging Stereotypes: What the European Court of Human Rights Can Borrow from American and Canadian Equal Protection Law’ [2015] 63(1) The American Journal of Comparative Law 239, 241.
78 Cara Davies, ‘Stereotyping and the New Women-Protective Antiabortion Movement’ (John and Mary Yaremko Forum on Multiculturalism and Human Rights, Student Symposium on Women’s Human Rights, University of Toronto 2009) 11; Anuradha Kumar, Leila Hessini and Ellen MH Mitchell, ‘Conceptualising Abortion Stigma’ [2009] 11(6) Culture, Health & Sexuality 625.
79 Davies (n 78).
80 Kumar and others (n 78) 629.
81 Chandra Talpade Mohanty, ‘Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses’ [1984] (12/13) Boundary 333, 345; Vasuki Nesiah, ‘Toward Feminist Internationality: Critique of US Feminist Legal Scholarship’ [1993] 16 Harvard Women’s Law Journal 189.
82 Chandra Talpade Mohanty (n 81) 338.
83 Ratna Kapur, Erotic Justice (Routledge-Cavendish 2005) 4–6, 18–19.
84 Melanie Randall, ‘Sexual Assault Law, Credibility, and “Ideal Victims”: Consent, Resistance, and Victim Blaming’ [2010] 22(2) Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 397.
85 Ratna Kapur, ‘The Tragedy of Victimization Rhetoric: Resurrecting the ‘Native’ Subject in International/Post-colonial Feminist Legal Politics’ [2002] 15 Harvard Human Rights Journal 1, 29.
86 Jain and Shah (n 63).
87 Ashaben w/o Dineshbhai Jasubhai Talsaniya v State of Gujarat, Special Criminal Appeal No 1919 of 2015.
88 ibid 32.
89 Pratiksha Baxi, ‘Rape, Retribution, State: On Whose Bodies?’ [2000] 35 Economic & Political Weekly 1196, 1199.
90 Ms Z v The State of Bihar (n 56) [2].
91 ibid [3].
92 ibid.
93 ibid [55].
94 ibid [3].
95 Indu Devi v The State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 5286 of 2017 [18].
96 ibid [9].
97 X v The State (NCT of Delhi), WP (Cr) 449/2013 (decided on 22 March 2013).
98 The facts of the case, as laid down in this judgement, state that the petitioner X allegedly had physical relations with the accused, Kapil, based on his ‘false promise to marry her’. When X found out about Kapil’s marital status, she felt ‘cheated’. She filed an FIR alleging that Kapil had raped her, and he was arrested subsequently.
99 X v The State (NCT of Delhi) (n 97).
100 ibid [4].
101 ibid.
102 Ms X through Her Legal Guardian v Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2642.:
103 ibid [6].
104 ABC v State of Maharashtra Through Rajapur Police Station and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 419 [7].
105 The MTP Act 1971, s 3.
106 ibid.
107 Kamini and Another v State of Punjab and Another, 2020 SCC Online P&H 897.
108 Afja v State of Kerala, 2021 SCC Online Ker 411.
109 Rastogi (n 64).
110 Komal Hiwale v State of Maharashtra, SLP No 7379 of 2020 (Supreme Court, 16 June 2020).
111 ibid.
112 ibid.
113 ibid.
114 Deepika Walia v UT Chandigarh and Others, CWP-16932–2020; Vandana Yadav and Another v UT Chandigarh and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2144; Sandeep Kaur v UT Chandigarh and Another, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1859; Sakshi v State of UT, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 2580; Nisha and Another v UT Chandigarh, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 988; Hema v State of Punjab, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H.
115 Deepika Walia Deepika Walia v UT Chandigarh (n 114).
116 Vandana Yadav v UT Chandigarh (n 114).
117 Neethu Narendran and Others v State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1735; Dhanya Hari v Union of India, 2020 SCC Online Ker 2417; Alfiya Beevi K v State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 631.
118 Mamta Alawa v State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 2750.
119 Jain and Sengupta (n 48).
120 Jain and others (n 53).
121 ibid.
122 The Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, s 144.
123 ibid.
124 Ayan Sharma, ‘Attacks on Journalists, Migrant Workers Struggling to Go Home: India’s Lockdown Is Taking a Toll’ (Newslaundry, 24 March 2020) <https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/03/24/attacks-on-journalists-migrant-workers-struggling-to-go-home-indias-lockdown-has-worrying-implications> accessed 20 November 2021.
125 Mahima Jain, ‘Pregnant during COVID-19: Expecting mothers left in the lurch by India’s healthcare system as tackling pandemic takes priority’ (Firstpost, 12 June 2020) <https://www.firstpost.com/health/pregnant-during-covid-19-expecting-mothers-left-in-the-lurch-by-indias-healthcare-system-as-tackling-pandemic-takes-priority-8476401.html> accessed 20 August 2022.
126 Jain and others (n 58).
127 Ipas Development Foundation, ‘Covid-19 Restrictions Compromised Abortion Access for 1.85 Million Women in India’ (Ipas, 23 July 2020) <https://www.ipas.org/news/covid-19-restrictions-compromised-abortion-access-for-1–85-million-women-in-india/> accessed 20 August 2022.
128 Parisa Patel, Mahua Das and Utpal Das, ‘The perceptions, health-seeking behaviours and access of Scheduled Caste women to maternal health services in Bihar, India’ [2018] 26(54) Reproductive Health Matters 114.
129 Nidhi Goyal and others, ‘Neglected and Forgotten: Women with Disabilities during the COVID Crisis in India’ (Rising Flame and Sightsavers, 14 July 2020) <https://risingflame.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NeglectedAndForgotten_RFandSS.pdf> accessed 5 January 2023.
130 ibid.
131 The Pratigya Campaign is a non-governmental organization which works towards the protection and advancement of access to safe abortion care for women in India.
132 Rastogi (n 64).
133 SCCOnline is a repository or database of judgements by Indian courts (the Supreme Court and High Courts).
134 Manupatra is an Indian database for online legal research that covers jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of India, all the High Courts established for specific states or territories, all Indian tribunals, and some international courts.
135 Rubina Kasam Phansopkar v State of Maharashtra (n 4).
136 ibid.
137 Ku Asthha Pande v State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, WP No 6494/2020 (Order dated 26 March 2020).
138 ibid.
139 ibid [6].
140 Rastogi (n 64).
141 Reva B Siegel, ‘The New Politics of Abortion: An Equality Analysis of Woman-Protective Abortion Restrictions’ [2007] 3 University of Illinois Law Review 991.
142 Sangita Sandip Dahilkar v State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online Bom 6207; X v State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC Online Bom 7392; Pramod A Solanke v Dean of BJ Government Medical College and Sassoon Hospital, 2020 SCC Online Bom 639; ABC v State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online Bom 419.
143 S Kurshith v Dean, Chengalpettu Medical College Hospital, 2021 SCC Online Mad 697; M Thangadurai v Chief Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, 2020 SCC Online Mad 1296; R Parimala v Dean, Thanjavur Medical College, 2020 SCC Online Mad 1504; V Durai v Dean, Thanjavur Medical College, 2020 SCC Online Mad 2560.
144 X v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC Online MP 695.
145 K v State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC Online Chh 2163.
146 XXX v Union of India, 2021 SCC Online Ker 1800; R XXXX v Union of India, 2021 SCC Online Ker 808; A v Union of India, 2020 SCC Online Ker 4041.
147 State of Rajasthan v S, 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 860 [7].
148 Alakh Alok Srivastava v Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No(s) 565/2017 (Order dated 28 July 2017).
149 ABC v State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC Online Chh 797.
150 ibid.
151 ibid 11, 21.
152 Christine Schwobel-Patel, ‘Nils Christie’s “Ideal Victim” applied: From Lions to Swarms’ (Critical Legal Thinking 2015) 3 <https://criticallegalthinking.com/2015/08/05/nils-christies-ideal-victim-applied-from-lions-to-swarms/> accessed 5 January 2023.
153 Rubina Kasam Phansopkar v State of Maharashtra (n 4).
154 Veera Yadav D/o Jhimi Lal Ray v The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and Others, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 5627 of 2020 (High Court of Patna).
155 ibid.
156 An unreported judgement of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal 135/2010. The order dated 29 September
2020 is available on Indian Kanoon <https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47726118/>.
157 ibid. Voter IDs, Aadhar cards, and ration cards are necessary identification proofs for Indian citizens to vote, receive social security, and access subsidized necessities.
158 ABC v State of Chhattisgarh, WP (Cr) No 454 of 2020 (High Court of Chhattisgarh).
159 ibid.
160 Binny Yohannan v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine 660.
161 Mrs X v GNCTD, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4274.
162 X v Union of India and Another, Writ Petition (Civil) No 1137/2023.
163 ibid 16.
164 ibid 18.
165 ibid.
166 ibid.
167 ibid.
168 ibid.
169 ibid.
170 X v Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1321.
171 XYZ v Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 560.
172 High Court on its Own Motion v The State of Maharashtra, 2017 Cri LJ 218.
173 Dipika Jain, “Her body, her choice: Why a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy must be upheld” (The Indian Express, 15 October 2023) <https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/her-body-her-choice-woman-terminate-pregnancy-upheld-8983912/> accessed 20 October 2023.
174 ibid.
175 ibid.
176 X v Union of India (n 162).
177 ibid 24.
178 ibid.
179 ibid 25.
180 American Psychological Association, ‘Psychosis’ (APA Dictionary of Psychology) <https://dictionary.apa.org/psychosis> accessed 20 October 2023.
181 Louis Appleby, Preben Bo Mortensen and E Brian Faragher, ‘Suicide and Other Causes of Mortality After Post-Partum Psychiatric Admission’ [1998] 173(3) The British Journal of Psychiatry 209.
182 XYZ v Union of India (n 171).
183 R v State of Haryana, (2016) SCC OnLine P&H 18,369.
184 ibid [41].
185 XYZ v State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 3353.
186 XYZ v State of Gujarat, (2023) SLP (Crl) [Dy No 33,790/2023].
187 ibid [17].
188 Rastogi (n 64).
189 ibid.
190 The MTP Amendment Act, s 3(2C)–(2D).
191 Rastogi (n 64).
192 ibid.
193 Loretta J Ross, ‘Understanding Reproductive Justice’ in Carole R McCann, Seung-Kyung Kim and Emek Ergun (eds), Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives (5th edn, Routledge 2020).
194 Rosemary Hunter, ‘Can feminist judges make a difference?’ [2008] 15(1–2) International Journal of the Legal Profession 7, 30.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112442/MPU-social-sciences.png"})