NEW DELHI: A case in Bombay high court led the judges to ask question whether intellectual disability has anything to do with becoming a mother.
On Wednesday, the Bombay HC’s justices R V Ghuge and Rajesh Patil were considering a petition from a father seeking to terminate his 27-year-old daughter’s 21-week pregnancy, citing her unmarried status and alleged mental unsoundness.
The petitioner acknowledged that his daughter wished to proceed with the pregnancy. The court had previously ordered a medical evaluation at Mumbai’s JJ Hospital, PTI reported.
The medical board’s assessment revealed that while the woman was not mentally unsound, she had borderline intellectual disability with 75 per cent IQ.
The court observed that since 2011, her parents had relied solely on medication, without pursuing psychological counselling or treatment.
“The observation (in the report) is that she has below average intelligence. Nobody can be super intelligent. We are all human beings and everybody has different levels of intelligence,” the court said.
“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 HC said.
The medical evaluation confirmed the foetus was healthy without anomalies, and the woman was physically capable of continuing the pregnancy, though termination remained an option.
Additional government pleader Prachi Tatke emphasised that the pregnant woman’s consent was crucial in such cases.
The court noted that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act permits termination beyond 20 weeks only for mentally ill women. The bench clarified that borderline intellectual functioning does not constitute mental illness.
The petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the woman had revealed the identity of the man responsible for her pregnancy.
The court advised the parents to engage with the man regarding potential marriage, stating, “As parents, take the initiative and talk to the man. They are both adults. It is not an offence.”
The bench reminded the adoptive parents, who had taken her in at five months old, of their parental responsibilities.
The next hearing was scheduled for January 13.