Mumbai: Does a woman, with below average intelligence, have no right to be a mother, asked the Bombay High Court on Tuesday. The court was hearing a plea by her father seeking permission to medically terminate pregnancy of 21-weeks on the grounds that she is mentally unsound, unmarried and incapable of raising a child. However, the woman, 27, expressed her desire to continue the pregnancy.
A division bench of Justices Ravindra Ghuge and Rajesh Patil noted that the woman had been on medication since 2011 but had not received psychological counseling. The woman was examined by a medical board at JJ Hospital, which reported that she was not mentally ill but diagnosed with “borderline intellectual disability” with an IQ of 75.
The report stated that both the woman and the foetus were medically fit and that there were no congenital anomalies. The board concluded that while medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) was possible, it was not mandatory.
During the hearing, Additional Government Pleader Prachi Tatke emphasized that the woman’s consent was critical. The bench remarked: “Just because she has below-average intelligence, does she have no right to be a mother? If we say that persons with below-average intelligence do not have the right to be parents, it would be against the law.”
The court further observed that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, pregnancies beyond 20 weeks can only be terminated if the woman is mentally ill or if the foetus has abnormalities. “Borderline cannot be said to be a mental disorder. She has not been declared mentally ill,” the judges added.
The father’s advocate informed the court that the woman had disclosed the identity of the man she was in a relationship with and who was the father of her child. She also expressed her desire to marry him.
The court then directed the woman’s parents to meet the man and ascertain his willingness to marry her. “As parents, take the initiative and talk to the man. They are both adults. It is not an offense,” the court said.
The judges reminded the parents of their duty, noting that they had adopted the woman as an infant and now needed to support her. The court adjourned the hearing to January 13 to allow the parents to explore the possibility of marriage and provide an update.
The bench emphasized that the woman’s autonomy and wishes must be respected, saying, “The consent of the pregnant woman is of paramount importance.”
