According to the amended Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in India, the maximum limit for abortions is 24 weeks (6 months), that too in special cases where the victim is a rape or incest survivor. However, the prior approval of two registered doctors is required. The doctors have to make sure that the continuation of the pregnancy can endanger the lives of both the mother and the child. But the judges can also deny abortion in cases that are “inappropriate and deserving”.
Speaking of which, while hearing the plea of a 16-years and 11-month-old rape survivor, who is 7 months pregnant and wanted an abortion, Gujarat HC observed that it was “normal” for 14-15-year-old girls to get married and have a child in the past. The bench also asked the petitioner to read the Manusmriti, reported LiveLaw.
“Because we are living in the 21st century, ask your mother or great-grandmother, 14-15 was the maximum age (for getting married). The child used to take birth before the age of 17. Girls get matured before boys. 4-5 months here and there doesn’t make a difference. You will not read it, but do read Manusmriti once for this,” the court observed.
This observation by judges angered many people online who called it regressive. Some even demanded proper mechanisms for the removal of such backward judges.
We must prioritize an efficient mechanism for the removal of judges. Ensuring accountability and maintaining public trust in the judiciary are crucial for a just and transparent legal system. Also, advocating for women’s rights requires a broader perspective than Hindu Brahmanic…
— Nitin Meshram (@meshramnitin_) June 8, 2023
With this kind of statement may be this judge thought that he will get promoted with the patronage of current dispensation. After all this Govt is busy in dragging everything back to yesteryears.
Hope CJI reprimands this judge severely & demotes him.
— K Sanjay Iyer (@sankiyer) June 8, 2023
Aren’t judges suppose to restrict themselves to law books when deciding on matters placed before them ?? After that kundali order we have this one. Clear Indications of where Indian judiciary is heading towards.
— Yoghurt (@ftmtbatt) June 8, 2023
Manusmriti also allowed marriage of girls at 8 years with a man three times her age. Should we allow that?
Have our judges pledged allegiance to Manusmriti or our Constitution? Why is this being brought into hearings & judgments repeatedly?
— Katyusha (@Indian10000000) June 8, 2023
Having a judge reminisce about the good ol days of pedophilia is a bit unusual.
— Kajol Srinivasan (@LOLrakshak) June 8, 2023
The one who drafted the Indian Constitution burnt manusmriti and here we have a judge quoting it in cases of Rape & not allowing termination of pregnancy
Can’t even say that we are going backwards because back then people were more progressive in their thoughts than today https://t.co/xqazvdntuY
— Saumya (@5SaumyaS) June 9, 2023
Gujrat HC siding with Manusmriti over the Constitution and regressing to an extent of uplifting child marriage and promoting teen pregnancy is the sickest form of judicial backwardness I’ve witnessed in the 21st CE. Pieces of shit should really reconsider their entire existence. https://t.co/VLo4omwcYi
— swarna (@kidofmisfortune) June 9, 2023
Why is the anti-feminine #manusmriti being quoted by the Judges in Indian Courts?
India is a secular Nation. Our justice systems have no business in referring to such texts while delivering justice.
— Paul Koshy (@Paul_Koshy) June 8, 2023
Sati was normal
Untouchability was normal
All from Manusmriti, shall we make it a law now?
A High Court in India saying this should be unpardonable, but nothing will be done. https://t.co/9yVBku0Sak
— Srinivas R (@srini_r_twit) June 8, 2023
What are your views on this observation by Gujarat HC?