Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Abortion is a decision best left to medical experts and not argued on academic grounds

Abortion is a decision best left to medical experts and not argued on academic grounds

While the Madras High Court judgment prioritises the mother’s reproductive autonomy and the child’s future quality of life in cases of severe foetal abnormalities, several legal and ethical grey areas remain.

Could you please clarify the statutory backing for permitting medical termination of pregnancy at around 32 weeks, given that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act generally restricts normal terminations to 24 weeks without judicial approval?

Furthermore, what are the legal implications when hospital authorities refuse a termination based on clinical judgement, and where does the threshold lie between parental rights and the foetus’s right to life? How do courts balance these conflicting priorities consistently across similar cases?

— Arulmozhi, Villivakkam, Chennai

While you discuss the safety aspects in carrying out abortion, the ceiling period in the Act, and the practical side of the issue, you must note that the US Supreme Court reversed the decision that gave a woman the right to abort (Roe v. Wade, 1973) after 50 years in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation (2022). The court ruled 5-4 to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, stating that the US Constitution does not confer such a right and that the issue is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions. In that aspect, our country is far advanced regarding a woman’s right to abort.

The 24-week ceiling has not been strictly adhered to in several court decisions. Ultimately, it is a decision that must be left to medical experts and not debated on academic grounds.

----

Increasing station contingency fund alone won’t stop cops from fleecing complainants

The Tamil Nadu government recently allocated Rs 71 crore to enhance contingency funds for police stations to meet routine operational expenses and curb corruption. Earlier, whenever I went to file a complaint or request a CSR copy, local station officers often demanded money for stationery, typing, fuel, or photostat charges under the pretext of lack of official departmental funds.

Now that the State government has officially sanctioned these contingency funds for daily administrative costs, does demanding such money from complainants constitute illegal gratification or extortion under the Prevention of Corruption Act? What legal remedy or recourse does a citizen have if police officers still demand out-of-pocket expenses for basic station services?

— Elango, Kancheepuram

The contingency fund issue for police stations has been there for several decades. It is not merely a matter of stationery supply. Firstly, police stations and the department have not been included in the supply list by the Director of Stationery and Printing, even though it is one place where such requirements are heavy. Therefore, a complainant who goes to a police station is made to run around to get these items, besides facing many other demands by the police.

Even if you increase the quantum of contingency funds for a police station, the problem of making demands on complainants is not going to be solved until policemen realise that they are public servants and not parasites. It is high time the essential requirements for a police station are assessed and properly budgeted, rather than leaving the expenditure to be met out of contingencies.