<p>The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act claiming that permitting abortion of foetus due to various reasons violated right to life of the yet-to-be-born.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and C T Ravi Kumar sought a response from the Union government on a petition filed by 'Cry for Life Society' and others.</p>.<p>The petitioners led by senior advocate K Radhakrishnan and advocate John Mathew contended that permitting abortion for the reasons that the yet-to-be-born is handicapped or that the pregnancy caused as a result of failure of device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children can be presumed to constitute grave injury to the mental health of the woman and that hence she can be permitted to undergo abortion, would violate the right to life.</p>.<p>"When a spermatozoon enters an ovum, fertilisation takes place, which marks the beginning of the biological life of an individual. Formation of a child is to be considered from this stage. Thereafter it acquires all rights of a human being and is entitled to all protection afforded to every citizen of India, including right to life and property, the only exception is when it becomes a risk or threat to the life of the mother," their plea said.</p>.<p>They challenged the validity of the Kerala High Court's order of June 9, 2020 which had dismissed their writ petition.</p>.<p>The petitioners pointed out the top court had in 'Suchita Srivastava and Anr Vs Chandigarh Administration (2009), though while dealing with the right of a woman to make reproductive choices, did specifically recognised the compelling state interest in protecting the life of the prospective child in case of a pregnant woman.</p>.<p>"The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition concluding that the validity of Section-3 (2) was upheld by this court in its letter and spirit in the decision, when the validity and the vires were not actually under challenge in those cases before this court," they added.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Centre on a plea challenging provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act claiming that permitting abortion of foetus due to various reasons violated right to life of the yet-to-be-born.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and C T Ravi Kumar sought a response from the Union government on a petition filed by 'Cry for Life Society' and others.</p>.<p>The petitioners led by senior advocate K Radhakrishnan and advocate John Mathew contended that permitting abortion for the reasons that the yet-to-be-born is handicapped or that the pregnancy caused as a result of failure of device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children can be presumed to constitute grave injury to the mental health of the woman and that hence she can be permitted to undergo abortion, would violate the right to life.</p>.<p>"When a spermatozoon enters an ovum, fertilisation takes place, which marks the beginning of the biological life of an individual. Formation of a child is to be considered from this stage. Thereafter it acquires all rights of a human being and is entitled to all protection afforded to every citizen of India, including right to life and property, the only exception is when it becomes a risk or threat to the life of the mother," their plea said.</p>.<p>They challenged the validity of the Kerala High Court's order of June 9, 2020 which had dismissed their writ petition.</p>.<p>The petitioners pointed out the top court had in 'Suchita Srivastava and Anr Vs Chandigarh Administration (2009), though while dealing with the right of a woman to make reproductive choices, did specifically recognised the compelling state interest in protecting the life of the prospective child in case of a pregnant woman.</p>.<p>"The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition concluding that the validity of Section-3 (2) was upheld by this court in its letter and spirit in the decision, when the validity and the vires were not actually under challenge in those cases before this court," they added.</p>
