In India, premature birth has been permitted in restricted conditions since the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act 1971 was passed, making an exemption to the offense of abortion under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  On 17th March, the Lower House (Lok Sabha) of the Indian Parliament passed the ‘MTP Amendment Bill 2020’, another arrangement of revisions to this almost fifty-year old law. 

The Bill comes as a redressal to many petitions documented before the eye of the courts looking for authorization to permit abortion in situations when the fetus had crossed as far as possible endorsed by the pre-revision Act. The Bill, at first sight, appears to have raised the gestational bar for abortion from 20 weeks to 24 weeks and attempts to address the necessities of sexual orientation equity through the crystal of regenerative rights, giving more noteworthy self-governance rights to the women.’

Nonetheless, the creator accepts that the Bill is just a therapeutic endeavor to oblige the authoritative need on fetus removal rights in India, without for all intents and purposes tending to favor decision banters on ladies’ real independence. There are a few lacunae in the system that actually should be successfully managed to.


  • Women hoping to end their pregnancy past 20 weeks need to confront the unwieldy legitimate response that prevents women’s reproductive privileges (as abortion is viewed as a critical aspect of ladies’ conceptive prosperity). 
  • As an outcome, a recent report in the India Journal of Medical Ethics noticed that, “10-13% of maternal deaths in India are because of premature births.” It makes unsafe abortion to be the third-most important reason for maternal passing’s in India. 
  • According to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, 1971,

“A registered medical practitioner might terminate a pregnancy:

 (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner-

(a) Where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) Where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in good faith, that-

(i) The continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or

(ii) There is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”. 

  • One of the MTP Act’s reactions, 1971, was that it neglected to stay up with advances in clinical innovation that take into consideration the expulsion of a baby at a generally progressed condition of pregnancy. 
  • The original law expresses that if a minor needs to end her pregnancy, composed assent from the guardian is required. The proposed law has barred this arrangement.


  • The Bill seeks to amend the “Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971”.  
  • The Bill proposes the prerequisite of assessing one enrolled medical practitioner (rather than at least two) for the end of pregnancy as long as 20 weeks of growth.
  • It presents the prerequisite of assessing two enrolled clinical experts for the end of pregnancy of 20-24 weeks of gestation.  
  • It has likewise upgraded as far as possible for ‘special categories’ of women, which incorporates survivors of rape, victims of incest, and other vulnerable women like differently-abled women and minors.
  • It additionally expresses that the “name and other particulars of a woman whose pregnancy has been terminated shall not be revealed,” but to an individual approved in any law that is currently in force. 


  • Several embryo irregularities are distinguished after the 20th week, frequently transforming a wanted pregnancy into an undesirable one.  
  • Usually, the fetal inconsistency filter is finished during the twentieth 21st seven day stretch of pregnancy. If there is a postponement in doing this output and uncovers a deadly oddity in the baby, 20 weeks time span is restricted. 
  • This expansion would permit the end of pregnancy in situations where some inconsistency in the embryo is accounted for in the following 20 weeks.  
  • The law will help the rape victims, ill and under-age women to end the undesirable pregnancy legally. 
  • The Bill likewise applies to unmarried ladies and, consequently, loosens up one of the backward statements of the 1971 Act, i.e., “single women couldn’t refer to contraceptive failure as a reason behind looking for an abortion.” 
  • Allowing unmarried ladies to medicinally terminate pregnancies and an arrangement to secure the individual’s protection looking for an abortion will offer reproductive rights to the women.


  • A vital part of the lawfulness overseeing abortion has consistently been the ‘viability’ of the embryo.
  • As innovation improves, with foundation up-degree and skillful experts driving clinical consideration, this ‘viability’ improves typically.  
  • Currently, viability is usually placed at around seven months (28 weeks) yet may happen prior, even at 24 weeks. 
  • The inclination for a male child keeps a sex assurance center in business despite their illicit status. There are worries that a more liberal abortion law can bother this situation.  
  • According to 2017 information, “59 nations permitted elective abortions, of which only seven allowed the method following 20 weeks like Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam.”


The MTP Act, 1971 sets as far as possible for early abortion 20 weeks, beyond which may just be performed, notwithstanding a court request actually, when there is a danger to the pregnant individual’s life. Indeed, even inside this breaking point, specialists are regularly reluctant to provide abortion because of fear of examinations and arraignment. These hindrances to safe abortion access have brought about various prosecutions the nation over. 

“A Pratigya Campaign study indicated that from 2016 to 2019, 194 women requested of courts looking for endorsement for abortion; 40 of these were for pregnancies under 20 weeks.”

In 2003, the “Rules to the MTP Act” were altered to restrictively permit guaranteed suppliers, outside enlisted offices, to give clinical medical abortion (MA) benefits as long as seven weeks. Simultaneously, the more prominent accessibility of MA pills has brought about an expansion in admittance to pregnancy termination. Medical abortion is a non-intrusive strategy. However, the legislature has neglected to guarantee that an adequate number of public medical care offices are prepared to provide abortion administrations; Subsequently, most abortions are being looked for in the private area. The reflection of the present law of heteronormative-male-centric understandings of family arranging as a method for population control, instead of activity of conceptive self-sufficiency 

The amendments don’t perceive abortion freely for any pregnancy phase, notwithstanding proof that clinical abortion is protected and non-obtrusive. Instead, the Bill keeps on requiring specialists’ endorsement for abortion and restricts the conditions under which this endorsement can be given. A significant addition from these revisions is unwinding the necessity; just one specialist is expected to affirm abortion for pregnancies as long as 20 weeks, instead of the previous prerequisite of two. In any case, the pool of suppliers stays unaltered. 

Second, while the 2020 Bill expands contraceptive failure as a ground for abortion to any “women or her accomplice” – as opposed to only married women – the incorporation of the expression partner” recommends that women will, in any case, need to refer to social grounds when they look for abortion. This arrangement will avoid enormous quantities of single women, mainly from minimized gatherings, for example, sex laborers. This arrangement also keeps on utilizing “women” and bars transsexual, intersex, and sexual orientation differing people.

Third, the extension of the gestational limit of as far as possible past 24 weeks is accessible just for pregnant ladies with analyses of fetal inconsistencies. Abortion access ought to be inside a self-rule system and self-assurance, instead of zeroing in on explicit grounds. The Nairobi Principles perceived that there is “no incompatibility between guaranteeing access to safe abortion and protecting disability rights, given that gender and disability-sensitive debates on autonomy, equality, and access to health care benefit all people.” 

The 2020 Bill also mandates third-party authorization for abortion post 24 weeks through the constitution of Medical Boards within any event five specialists. Most experts are amassed in metropolitan zones. Subsequently, looking for authorization from these Boards will bring about generous expenses just as deferrals for underestimated people, particularly those in provincial areas.

Finally, the secrecy condition in the 2020 Bill permits exposure of the pregnant individual’s subtleties to people “approved by law,” which disregards security privilege.


The Indian Supreme Court has created a definite statute on regenerative rights. In the milestone protection judgment, Justice Chandrachud expressed that regenerative decision should be pursued inside the individual freedom ensured under “Article 21 of the Indian Constitution”. The MTP Amendment Bill 2020 likewise represents the need to guarantee “dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, and justice for women who need to terminate a pregnancy.” In any case, the revisions don’t convert into a real move in power from the specialist to the individual looking for fetus removal. In the interim, there is a need to make a rights-put together legitimate system concerning abortion that is following established qualities and India’s global everyday freedoms law responsibilities. The battle proceeds – for a law that maintains the rights to uniformity, independence, real uprightness, and protection; and for one that can change the biological system inside which individuals can practice their full scope of regenerative rights, and especially their decisional self-sufficiency to look for abortions.


  1. Sharmila Sibal, ‘Amendments We Should Be Asking For in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill’ ’The wire, (Last visited on October 6, 2020).
  2. Vrinda Grover, ‘The amendments in the MTP Act bill are flawed| Analysis’ The Hindustan times, ( Last visited on October 6, 2020).
  3. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
  4. Tandfonline, ‘The MTP 2020 Amendment Bill: Anti-Rights Subjectivity’ (Last visited October 6, 2020).
  5. Drishtiias, ‘Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill, 2020’ (Last visited October 5, 2020).


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *