1.

The Swadhar Mental Facility (“Swadhar”) operated by the State of

Maharashtra had admitted Ms. Neeta who is a 34 year old patient suffering from
W-Syndrome since 4 years. The patient admitted suffers from the following
symptoms like loss of speech, balance and coordination problems which disables
her from walking in many cases, stereotypic hand movements, breathing
difficulties, anxietal issues, social-behavioural problems and, intellectual and
developmental disabilities.
2. Ms. Neeta was in the 4th week of preganancy which was found on 13 th February,
2021. The investigation held by Swadhar stated that Ms. Neeta was sexually
abused for a long period of time by Mr. Tukaram who was a ward-boy in Swadhar.
Mr. Tukaram was immediately suspended and disciplinary proceedings were
undertaken against him. The Swadhar facility immediately informed Ms.
Neeta’s father.
3. Ms. Ramesh Chavan, father of Ms. Neeta and her legal guardian told the
Swadhar facility to carry forward the abortion. Mr. Ramesh Chavan stated that as
Ms. Neeta’s legal guardian, he has the right to consent for abortion on her
behalf as per the Section 3(4)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act
of 1971.
4. The abortion was undertaken during the 11th week of Ms. Neeta’s Pregnancy. After
a week, Stree Shakti which is a women’s rights organization came to know
regarding the incident and protested before Swadhar and residence of Ms.
Neeta’s family.
5. Mr. Ramesh when press questioned him stated his reason that the law enabled the
legal guardian of a mentally-ill women woman to consent on her behalf for
performing abortion. Mr. Ramesh stated that he was not physically or financially
ready to take care of the child born to her daughter.
6. The doctor of the Swadhar facility who performed the abortion of Ms. Neeta has
stated that the abortion was undertaken keeping in purview the provisions of
the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971.
7. Stree Shakti has filed the petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the
consitutionality of the Section 3(4)(a) which violates the Article 14 and 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Stree Shakti also mentions that this section also violates the
principles of CEDAW, CRPD and Declaration of Sexual Rights and prayed for
compensation for Ms. Neeta.
8. The State of Maharasta has stated that provisions of Section 3(4)(a) of the Act is
not violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India as there is a
reasonable classification. The provisions is given as per law and does not
contradict Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State of Maharashtra
denies any kind of liability to Ms. Neeta as the abortion undertaken is valid as
per the provisions prescribed by law.