January 9, 2025: The Bombay High Court has raised important questions regarding the rights of individuals with below-average intelligence, asking whether a woman’s "borderline intellectual function" could justify denying her the right to motherhood. The case involves a 27-year-old woman whose adoptive father has petitioned for the medical termination of her pregnancy, now over 20 weeks along, despite her refusal to consent to the procedure.

During the hearing, a bench of Justices R.V. Ghuge and R.S. Patil reviewed a medical board report submitted by Additional Public Prosecutor Prachi Tatake. The report confirmed that both the woman and her fetus were healthy but noted the woman’s borderline intellectual capacity. The bench questioned the relevance of this finding, pointing out that the woman had not been declared mentally ill through any formal procedure. The judges remarked that a diagnosis of below-average intelligence does not automatically translate to a mental disorder and asked, “Because she has below-average intelligence, she has no right to be a mother?”

The court explored the possibility of marriage between the woman and her partner after the father’s advocate, S.K. Dubey, revealed that she had identified her partner and expressed a desire to marry him. The judges suggested that the parents initiate discussions with the man, emphasizing the importance of the woman feeling secure and supported. They stated, “She is 27 years old. She should feel comfortable, not terrorized.”

The adoptive father, who took custody of the woman when she was a few months old, has cited her mental health issues and his inability to support her child due to financial constraints and his advanced age. He claimed that the woman suffers from conditions such as borderline personality disorder and depression, has displayed violent behavior, and requires regular medication. He also alleged that she has been sexually active since her early teens and frequently left the house without informing him.

Despite these arguments, the bench reminded the father of his parental responsibilities, noting, “Parents must do their duty. You adopted her when she was five months old. Now you know that the child has grown with you.”

The court has directed the parents to determine the willingness of the woman’s partner to marry her before proceeding further. The case will be heard again on January 13, sparking broader discussions on reproductive rights, mental health, and societal perceptions of intellectual disabilities.