Reason Behind The Supreme Court Using "Pregnant Person" Instead Of "Pregnant Women Or Girl"
In one of its judgement, the Supreme Court departed from its conventional practice and used the word, “pregnant person”, instead of “pregnant woman” or “pregnant girl”. The judgement was made by a three-judge bench, led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI), DY Chandrachud. The bench also included J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra. A footnote was added to the judgement explaining the reason to prefer the term “person”.
The footnote read that the term “pregnant person” was used inn recognition that apart from the cisgender women, pregnancy can also be experienced by some non-binary people and transgender men among other gender identities.
The judgement recalled its earlier verdict that allowed a 14-year-old girl, who was a victim of sexual assault, to abort her 31-weeks-old pregnancy. The 22 paged judgement used the pregnant person expression 42 times.
The detailed judgement that was pronounced on April 29, allows the girl to carry on with the full-term pregnancy. The verdict came after the girl”s parents voiced concerns about their daughter”s health in light of the inherent dangers of carrying out the procedure in an advanced pregnancy.
Further elaborating on the “primacy of the pregnant person’s consent in abortion”, the verdict also said that, “In case there is a divergence in the opinion of a pregnant person and her guardian, the opinion of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling the court to arrive at a just conclusion”.
On April 22, the apex court allowed the request of the girl”s mother for the medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), terming the pregnancy “very, very exceptional case where we have to protect her”. After perusing the medical report submitted by the dean of the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Hospital, Sion, the court said that the “continuation of the pregnancy against the will of the minor may impact negatively on the physical and mental well-being of a minor who is barely 14 years old”.
Thought the hospital authorities were given permission to carry out the procedure, they sought clarification as the girl”s mother was changing her statements in fear of the likely risks of an MTP at such an advanced stage of pregnancy.
After interacting with the medical team of the Sion hospital and the girl”s parents, the bench recalled the order for MTP. The Supreme Court also directed the Sion Hospital to bear all the expenses regarding the earlier hospitalisation of the minor and her re-admission for delivery as and when she is required to do so. The bench also added that if the girl and her parents desire to give the child up for adoption after the delivery, the State Government shall take all necessary steps per the applicable provisions of law to facilitate this. “This shall not be construed as a direction of this Court binding either the parents or the minor and the State shall abide by the wishes as expressed at the appropriate stage,” said the bench.
