The landmark case of Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. (1963) marked a significant milestone in recognizing the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court established that this right includes the right to live with human dignity, which encompasses the right to health. This recognition indirectly acknowledged the importance of safeguarding the health of an unborn child within the mother’s womb.
In Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), the Supreme Court further expanded the right to life to include the right to medical care. This extension applied to both the mother and the unborn child, significantly strengthening the legal framework surrounding the unborn child’s healthcare needs.
Another pivotal case, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), explicitly recognized that an unborn child’s right to life and personal liberty is protected under Article 21. The court asserted that the State has a duty to protect the health and lives of both pregnant women and their unborn children. However, it also clarified that the rights of the unborn child are not absolute and must be weighed against the rights of the mother.
In a recent ruling, Aparna Ajinkya Firodia (2022), the Supreme Court reinforced the rights of children by recognizing their right to protect genetic information from unauthorized DNA testing. This decision underscores the importance of privacy and autonomy concerning an individual’s genetic data, even amid family disputes.
The concept of the "right of the unborn child" has evolved globally. Initially, unborn children were not regarded as legal persons with independent rights. However, advancements in medical technology and shifts in social perspectives have led many countries to implement laws that grant varying levels of protection to the unborn. A notable case is Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized a constitutional right to abortion while also acknowledging the State’s interest in protecting fetal life, especially as it approaches viability.
India's legal framework regarding the rights of the unborn child has progressively acknowledged the fetus's right to life, health, and personal liberty under Article 21. While these rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the mother’s rights, they signify a shift towards greater legal protection for the unborn. This evolution reflects changing societal attitudes and an increasing recognition of the fetus as a distinct entity deserving of specific rights and considerations.
Q1. What is the significance of Article 21 in relation to unborn children?
Answer: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution safeguards the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include the rights of unborn children, emphasizing their right to health and dignity.
Q2. How did the Kharak Singh case influence unborn child rights?
Answer: The Kharak Singh case recognized that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to health, indirectly acknowledging the importance of protecting the health of unborn children.
Q3. What did the Suchita Srivastava case establish?
Answer: The Suchita Srivastava case explicitly held that the unborn child's right to life and personal liberty is protected under Article 21, highlighting the State's duty to safeguard their health.
Q4. How has the legal perspective on unborn child rights changed globally?
Answer: Globally, the recognition of unborn child rights has evolved, with many countries enacting laws that provide varying protections, reflecting societal shifts and advancements in medical understanding.
Q5. What recent developments have occurred in unborn child rights in India?
Answer: Recent developments include the Supreme Court's ruling affirming children's rights to protect their genetic information, reinforcing privacy and consent in genetic data matters.
Question 1: What does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protect?
A) Right to education
B) Right to life and personal liberty
C) Right to property
D) Right to free speech
Correct Answer: B
Question 2: Which case recognized the unborn child's right to health?
A) Kharak Singh v. State of U.P.
B) Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh
C) Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration
D) Aparna Ajinkya Firodia
Correct Answer: C
Question 3: What is the primary focus of the Suchita Srivastava case?
A) Right to privacy
B) Right to education
C) Right to health of the unborn child
D) Right to free speech
Correct Answer: C
Kutos : AI Assistant!
