Constitutional Governance Case Study

CASE ANALYSIS

SUCHITA SRIVASTAVA VS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Riyan Vatcha Ms. Aakanksha Kumar

B.B.A. LL.B. Faculty of

1st Semester Constitutional Governance I

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, JODHPUR

SUMMER SESSION

(JULY-NOVEMBER 2014)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On the completion of this project I find that there are many persons to whom I would like to express my gratitude, since without their help and co-operation the success of this educative endeavour would not have been possible.

I welcome this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to my teacher and guide,Ms. Aakanksha Kumar, Faculty of Constitutional Governance,

Khursheed Ardeshir-Vatcha and Mr. Jamsheed Vatcha, who have been the real driving force for this work.

-Riyan Vatcha RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

SUBJECT: Constitutional Governance

TOPIC: Case Study: Suchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh Administration

The method of research opted by me to complete this project was doctrinal research from primary and secondary sources. Primary sources of case judgments has formed a major part of the project. Articles and reports available in web databases on the topic by scholars on the subject have also been used.

SCOPE

This projects aims to do a case analysis on the Suchita Srivastava vs Chandigarh Administration Case. It will show a brief background on the facts of the case, review the judgment, and then critique the judgment. It will show the drawbacks in the judgment, and the ways a better judgment could have been administered. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ii

Research Methodology iii

Scope iv

Table of Contents v

Introduction 1

Background 2

Personal Liberty and Reproductive Autonomy 3

a. Reproductive Rights- Competing and Compelling Interests 3

b. Enriching Life: Privacy, Autonomy, Dignity and Right to Life 3

c. ‘Choice’ and its Implications

Suchita Srivastava was a mentally retarded woman residing in a government run welfare institution in Chandigarh. She was raped by a worker in this institution, and was later found to be nine weeks pregnant. This led to a medical board being set up, which was supposed to opine whether she had the requisite capability and comprehension to continue with her pregnancy. This board favoured abortion. This matter was then referred to the Chandigarh High Court, who appointed an expert body to look into the matter. The expert body recommended the continuation of the pregnancy. But, the Court exercised its parens patriae powers, overruled the body and ordered termination of the pregnancy. The matter was then appealed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed the order of the High Court- alluding to Roe vs Wade it held that the reproductive autonomy was an integral part of a woman’s right to life under Article 21. It rejected the exercise of parens patriae powers to alter the appellant’s decisions, and asked the state to ensure healthy delivery and post-natal care for both the mother and the child. Furthermore, it observed that stereotypes levelled against persons with disabilities are impermissible after India had acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In spite of a seemingly fair outcome, the judgment