List of Current Affairs

Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of X.Y.Z. v. The Dean of B.J., Government Medical College and Ors., has held that in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman, abortion can be allowed.

What was the Background of X.Y.Z. v. The Dean of B.J., Government Medical College and Ors. Case?

• In this case, the 19 years old petitioner had approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to terminate her 25-weeks pregnancy.
• The pregnancy is not owing to any crime but is due to a consensual relationship.
• The High Court noticed that the private medical report annexed to the Petition had indicated no abnormality with the foetus.
• The High Court called upon the Medical Board of the B.J. Government Medical College and Sassoon Hospital, to provide its assessment in compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).
• Upon review of the report, it is clear that the Petitioner is carrying a single live intrauterine foetus, aged at 25 weeks and 6 days.
• The Medical Board examined the Petitioner, counseled her and has returned an explicit finding that considering the woman’s current psychological status, sociocultural and economic conditions, continuation of pregnancy can lead to grave psychological injury.
• The findings returned in the Medical Board’s report are essentially that the Petitioner would suffer grave psychological injury if the pregnancy is continued.
• The High Court permitted the petitioner to undergo the termination procedure at the Sassoon Hospital.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench of Justices N.R. Borkar and Somasekhar Sudaresan observed that abortion can be allowed in cases where continuing pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the pregnant woman. Such allowance cannot be limited to pregnancy emanating from sexual assault.
• The Court relied on the judgment in the case of A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2024):
  • The Supreme Court held that a pregnant person's health and consent are paramount in such cases. It was also highlighted that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is deeply personal, and intertwined with dignity, autonomy, and reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).

What are the Legal Provisions Related to Abortion in India?

About Abortion:

• Abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy, typically performed during the first 28 weeks of gestation. It can be achieved through various medical procedures or medications, depending on the stage of pregnancy and the preferences of the individual seeking abortion.
• Abortion can be a highly contentious and debated topic, often involving ethical, moral, religious, and legal considerations.

Legal Provisions Related to Abortion in India:

• Until the 1960s, abortion was prohibited in India, and violating this led to imprisonment or fines under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The Shantilal Shah Committee was set up in the mid-1960s to investigate the need for abortion regulations.
  • Based on its findings, the MTP was enacted, allowing safe and legal abortions, safeguarding women's health, and reducing maternal mortality.

MTP Act:

About:

• The MTP Act came into force on 1^st of April 1972.
• The MTP Act allowed pregnancy termination by a medical practitioner in two stages:
  • A single doctor's opinion was necessary for abortions up to 12 weeks after conception.
  • For pregnancies between 12 to 20 weeks old, the opinion of two doctors was required to determine if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health or if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously “handicapped” before agreeing to terminate the woman’s pregnancy.
• This Act was updated more comprehensively in 2020, and the revised law became effective in September 2021 with the following amendments.
  • Increase in the maximum gestational age at which a woman may obtain a medical abortion from 20 weeks under the MTP Act of 1971 to 24 weeks.
  • A single qualified medical professional’s opinion might be used to access the MTP up to 20 weeks into the pregnancy and from 20 weeks up to 24 weeks, the opinion of two registered medical practitioners would be required.
  • After seeking the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the pregnancy can be terminated up to 24 weeks of gestational age under the conditions given below:
    • If the woman is either a survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest;
    • If she is a minor;
    • If there is a change in her marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (due to widowhood or divorce);
    • If she suffers from major physical disabilities or she is mentally ill;
    • Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of fetal malformation incompatible with life or the possibility of a seriously handicapped child being born;
    • If the woman is situated in a humanitarian setting or disaster or stuck in the emergency as declared by the Government.
  • Abortion is performed based on fetal abnormalities in cases where pregnancy has progressed over 24 weeks.
    • A four-member Medical Board, established in each state under the MTP Act, must grant permission for this type of abortion.

Case Laws:

• In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment that there should not be any distinction between married and unmarried women in seeking an abortion of pregnancy in the 20-24 weeks terms arising out of a consensual relationship. It stated that all women are entitled to safe & legal abortion.
• XYZ v. State of Gujarat (2023), it was held that the medical board or the High Court cannot refuse abortion merely on the ground that the gestational age of the pregnancy is above the statutory prescription.

Source: Madras High Court

Why in News?

The Madras High Court in matter of R Anushri v. The Secretary TNPSC and Others directed the Tamil Nadu government to establish separate criteria for transgender individuals in employment and education, criticizing the state's continued confusion in categorizing transgender individuals.

• The court ruled in favor of a transwoman who was denied certificate verification despite qualifying, emphasizing the need to recognize transgender individuals as a special category and provide them with equitable opportunities.
• This decision highlights the ongoing struggle for inclusion and recognition of transgender rights in India.

What was the Background of R Anushri v. The Secretary TNPSC and Others?

• R Anushri (Petitioner) a transwoman, completed SSLC in 2005-2006, higher secondary in 2007-2008, and Engineering in Computer Science in 2012.
• The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) issued Notification No. 10/2017 on 27/4/2017 for the Combined Civil Service Examination for the year 2017-2018, inviting applications for non-interview Post group -II A services.
• The petitioner appeared for the written examination and scored 121.5 marks, exceeding the qualifying cut-off of 90 marks for all categories, but was placed at 69325th rank under communal ranking.
• Despite scoring above the cut-off, the petitioner was not considered for certificate verification. Others with lower scores were allowed to proceed.
• The petitioner approached the court seeking a Certiorarified Mandamus (Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950) to review her exclusion and demand inclusion for certificate verification.
• TNPSC (Respondent) argued that they followed government rules and guidelines, treating the petitioner as part of the Scheduled Caste category since she identified as a transgender under that category.
  • Since she didn't meet the cut-off for that category, she was excluded from verification.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Madras High Court, led by Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan, directed the state government to establish specific criteria for the employment and education of transgender individuals.
• Transgender persons should be treated as a distinct special category, separate from the male or female categorization, and entitled to the same considerations as other specially recognized groups.
• Despite previous notifications from the government, confusion persists regarding the placement of transgender individuals, who are often categorized under existing gender norms.
• In response to a case where a transwoman sought inclusion in the Combined Civil Service Examination, the court criticized the failure to acknowledge transgender individuals as a separate category in notifications, emphasizing the necessity of extending equal opportunities to them.
• The court referenced the NALSA v. UOI, 2014 judgment, highlighting that while transgender individuals are entitled to benefits similar to socially and educationally backward classes, they should not be assigned to such categories, as it contradicts the directives of the Apex Court.
• The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) was mandated by the court to allow the petitioner to proceed with document uploading for certificate verification, underscoring the importance of providing transgender individuals with equitable opportunities for societal integration and well-being.

What is Transgender Community?

• The transgender community is a diverse group of individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth.
• Gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of their own gender, which may be male, female, a combination of both, or neither (non-binary).
• It's important to recognize that transgender people are a diverse group with varied experiences, identities, and backgrounds.
• They face unique challenges related to societal stigma, discrimination, and access to healthcare, among other issues.

What is Section 377 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC)?

• Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, a relic of British India, states that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished”.
• This included private consensual sex between adults of same sex.
• After the recent SC judgment, provisions of Section 377 remain applicable in cases of non-consensual carnal intercourse with adults, all acts of carnal intercourse with minors, and acts of bestiality.

Which Act Govern Transgender Persons?

• Transgender Persons Act, 2019:
  • The Act defines a transgender person as one whose gender does not match the gender assigned at birth. It includes transmen and trans-women, persons with intersex variations, gender-queers, and persons with socio-cultural identities, such as kinnar and hijra.

What are the Rulings for safeguarding LGBTQIA+ Rights?

• Naz Foundation & Ors., v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2009)
  • The Naz Foundation is a trust which filed a case questioning the validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • The Delhi High Court in the year 2009 stated that consensual sexual intercourse between two adults is valid in the eyes of the law.
    • Any punishment for such act would be violative Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Article 14.
• Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Union of India (2013)
  • The court in 2013 reversed the judgment in the Naz Foundation case.
  • The bench opined that the court cannot decriminalize homosexuality, Parliament by law has the power to do so.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014)
  • The Apex Court recognized the right to self-identification and legal recognition of gender identity for LGBTQ+.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018)
  • On 6^th September 2018, a five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra, Justices Rohington Nariman, D Y Chandrachud, A M Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra partially decriminalized Section 377 of the IPC.
    • Section 377 of IPC criminalizes Unnatural Offences.
  • The provision was decriminalized to the extent it was criminalizing homosexual relations.
  • The bench found it violative of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
• Shafin Jahan v. K.M. Asokan (2018)
  • The Apex Court in this case held that the validity of the marriage cannot be decided by the court of law in the case of major individuals.
  • The right to marry is not expressly mentioned under the Constitution of India but its interpretation can be guided by Article 21 which provides for the right to life and personal liberty.