Disability Alone Cannot Be Ground To Deny Reproductive Autonomy Delhi HC
Delhi HC stresses reproductive autonomy cannot be denied solely due to disability.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking permission for a hysterectomy on a differently-abled woman, observing that disability by itself cannot be the sole basis for denying reproductive autonomy. The court said any decision to remove a reproductive organ must be guided by medical evaluations and should be based on what is considered to be in the person's best interests.
Justice Amit Mahajan said surgical intervention could be undertaken only if medical experts recommended it after assessing the circumstances of the person concerned. In an order passed on September 22, the court said such an intervention could be considered where medical evaluations establish that it would protect the person's welfare and dignity.
The judge directed the authorities to constitute an independent multidisciplinary medical board and take a decision within four weeks on whether the proposed surgery should be conducted. The court clarified that its direction only permitted the constitution of the medical board and did not amount to approval for the hysterectomy.
Also Read: Delhi HC Emphasises Women Athletes’ Rights While Hearing Vinesh Phogat’s Olympic Dispute
The court emphasised that the final decision on the surgery must be based on the opinion of domain experts. It said the medical board would have to assess whether the procedure was necessary in light of the woman's medical history and circumstances. The court also clarified that the permission to constitute the board should not be treated as a blanket authorisation for surgical intervention.
The plea had been filed by the parents of the woman, who sought directions to the Delhi government to consider conducting a hysterectomy, which involves the surgical removal of the uterus. According to the petitioners, their daughter was born in March 2005 and has cerebral palsy with spastic moderate hemiparesis and moderate mental retardation.
The parents claimed that the woman's disability was permanent and non-progressive and that she was unable to manage herself during her menstrual cycles. They also submitted that she was not in a fit state of mind to provide consent for the proposed surgery. The court's direction places the question of whether the procedure is medically appropriate with the independent multidisciplinary medical board.
Also Read: High Court Demands Explanation From WFI Over Order Restricting Phogat From Trial Registration
