If you are a professional in an emerging industry, like gaming, data science, cloud computing, digital marketing etc., that has promising career opportunities, this is your chance to be featured in #CareerKiPaathshaala. Fill up this form today!
The judgement pointed out that the MTP (Amendment) Act 2021 mentions ‘partner’ and not ‘husband’, and therefore intends to include women irrespective of their marital status.
The Supreme Court of India overturned a Delhi High Court judgement on Thursday, thereby expanding the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, to include unmarried women’s access to abortion. This judgement ruled in favour of a 25-year old unmarried woman who was seeking to terminate her 24-weeks pregnancy against Delhi High Court’s decision to deny her that relief on the grounds of her marital status.
The bench, consisting Justices Chandrachud, Kant and Bopanna, found that the “beneficial provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act cannot be denied to a woman solely on the ground that she is unmarried”. The judgement pointed out that the Act mentions ‘partner’ and not ‘husband’ and therefore intends to include women, irrespective of their marital status.
The MTP Amendment Act, 2021, permits
The petitioner’s counsel had mentioned how having to carry the pregnancy after being abandoned by her partner amounted to ‘mental cruelty’ and is ‘becoming more challenging’. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court passed its judgement noting that the Act was inclusive of unmarried women.
This judgement by the Supreme Court that followed the restrictive interpretation by the Delhi High court shone a light on the social mores that stigmatise and show up society’s discomfort with single women being sexually active or owning their agency. While the judiciary has recognised that access to abortion is equal to all regardless of marital status, the society at large is still conservative and discriminative against unmarried women.
Stigmatisation of women’s sexuality, sexual freedom and conversations around reproductive rights have decreased the accessibility to abortion facilities, despite them being legal. The gravity of the situation is reflected in the discomfort most sexually active single women face every time they visit a gynaecologist!
Then there are financial challenges which make access to medical opinion unfeasible for many across the length and breadth of the country. There is a distinct shortage of doctors with specialisation for the same, so women might have to travel long distances for the medical opinion required, which prove inaccessible as single women without family backing might not have the required funds.
In addition to social and economic challenges that women face in accessing safe abortion facilities, delayed diagnosis due to health conditions gives rise to legal constraints if the 20-week period is crossed. Health conditions like PCOS and endometriosis which are relatively common among people of reproductive age cause irregular periods making timely diagnosis difficult.
Due to patriarchal conditioning, even gynaecologists are less likely to prescribe pregnancy tests for every delay in the menstrual cycle of single women.
As the overturning of Roe v. Wade by US Supreme Court threatens a global conservative shift in conceptualisations of reproductive rights, the MTP Act, even with its many faults, is considerably wide ranging.
The faults are many – it is not rights based – that is, abortion is merely legal, and not a “fundamental right”, it does not recognise nonbinary and trans people as needing abortion rights, and there are numerous systemic barriers to accessibility.
But the amendment of 2021 has considerably broadened the scope in including women irrespective of their marital status, and has increased period of time during which one can seek abortion. Now the Supreme Court’s iteration of the petitioner’s right to agency needs to intensify conversations around abortion and the agency to combat social barriers.
An undergraduate student of Political Science at Presidency University, Kolkata. Describes herself as an intersectional feminist and an avid reader when she's not busy telling people about her cats. Adores walking around and exploring read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
People have relationships without marriages. People cheat. People break up all the time. Just because two people followed some rituals does not make them more adept at tolerating each other for life.
Why is that our society defines a woman’s success by her marital status? Is it an achievement to get married or remain married? Is it anybody’s business? Are people’s lives so hollow that they need someone’s broken marriage to feel good about themselves?
A couple of months ago, I came across an article titled, “Shweta Tiwari married for the third time.” When I read through it, the article went on to clarify that the picture making news was one her one of her shows, in which she is all set to marry her co-star. She is not getting married in real life.
Fair enough. But why did the publication use such a clickbait title that was so misleading? I guess the thought of a woman marrying thrice made an exciting news for them and their potential readers who might click through.
Did the creators of Masaba Masaba just wake up one morning, go to the sets and decide to create something absolutely random without putting any thought into it?
Anyone who knows about Neena Gupta’s backstory would say that she is a boss lady, a badass woman, and the very definition of a feminist. I would agree with them all.
However, after all these decades of her working in the Indian film industry, is her boldness and bravery the only things worth appreciating?
The second season of Masaba Masaba (2020-2022) made me feel as if both Neena Gupta and her daughter Masaba have gotten typecast when it comes to the roles they play on screen. What’s more is that the directors who cast them have stopped putting in any effort to challenge the actors, or to make them deliver their dialogues differently.