What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court, questioning the denial of motherhood rights to a woman with a borderline intellectual disability, has ignited a crucial debate on the intersection of disability rights and reproductive autonomy. This case, involving a 27-year-old woman with an IQ of 75, underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of intellectual disabilities and their implications on fundamental human rights.
The court’s decision to uphold the woman’s right to continue her pregnancy, despite her father’s petition for termination, is a significant step towards recognizing the autonomy and dignity of individuals with intellectual disabilities. The medical board’s report, which found no foetal anomalies and deemed the woman fit to continue her pregnancy, played a pivotal role in this decision. The court rightly emphasized that the law does not bar individuals with lower-than-average intelligence from parenthood, challenging the societal prejudices that often marginalize such individuals.
This ruling reminds us that intelligence is not a monolithic measure of a person’s ability to nurture and care for a child. The court’s observation that “nobody can be super-intelligent” and that “everybody has different levels of intelligence” is a powerful statement against the discriminatory attitudes that often pervade our society3. It is essential to recognise that intellectual disabilities do not diminish a person’s capacity for love, care, and responsibility.
However, this case also highlights the need for comprehensive support systems for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The woman’s parents, who had not provided her with psychological counselling or treatment, must now ensure that she receives the necessary support to navigate motherhood. This includes access to healthcare, counselling, and social services that can help her manage the challenges she may face as a parent.
The court’s suggestion for the parents to reach out to the man responsible for the pregnancy to explore the possibility of marriage is a pragmatic approach, considering the social and legal implications of unmarried motherhood in India. However, any such decision must respect the woman’s autonomy and consent.
This ruling also raises broader questions about the rights of individuals with disabilities in India. While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, of 2016, provides a robust legal framework for the protection of disability rights, its implementation remains inconsistent. Cases like this highlight the need for greater awareness and sensitivity towards the rights and needs of individuals with disabilities.
