The Right to Abortion: A Comparative Critical Examination of the Legal Position in India and America

I. Introduction

Abortion is one controversial topic that has been the subject of intense debate and discussion over the years. Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus a foetus or embryo resulting in or causing its death². It has been practiced since ancient times, and despite its common occurrence, it has been the subject of intense scrutiny and controversy. It is one of the most complex topics of constitutional adjudication even today. It is because abortion is the focal point of various rights, claims, and interests of various multiple stakeholders which get so entangled with each other that the issue requires judicial intervention. The issue is very crucial because it raises fundamental questions about human existence itself, such as when life begins and what makes us human. It finds itself right in the center of complex issues like right of women to control their own bodies, the nature of the state's duty to protect the unborn, the tension between secular and religious views of human life and the individual and society, the rights of spouses and parents to be involved in the abortion decision, and the conflicting rights of the mother and the fetus.³ Thus, it involves one of the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in their lifetime, which is central to their dignity and autonomy and often leads to moral, ethical, and legal dilemmas.

The Right to Abortion has been the subject of intense political, social, religious, legislative, and judicial scrutiny over the years since there are very few other legal issues that spark as emotional a debate as this right. It is interesting to note that this is one legal issue that enjoys such disparate outcomes in different jurisdictions. In this paper, however, the author chooses to look at the Right to Abortion through judicial lenses and understand the constitutional basis to support conflicting rights embedded in it. The issue shall be looked into from a fundamental rights perspective to understand the present jurisprudence on the subject. The author shall look into the abortion jurisprudence in the USA and the extent of its influence on Indian law.

II. Historical development of the abortion dilemma

Abortion is a practice that has been practiced by women from ancient times. The attitude towards abortion in the ancient world was, on the whole, accepting of abortion, with few qualms about its practice. Ancient religion placed no bar on abortion, and foetal rights were largely unrecognized.⁴ In the Mediterranean world in which Christianity evolved, abortion was considered a normal practice. A similar approach was visible in the Roman empire as well, wherein despite the punishment prescribed for abortion in certain circumstances, there was a general disregard for foetal and early life. It was in this climate that the Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life developed, which put forth that abortion was incompatible with the fundamental Christian norm of love, a norm which forbade the taking of life. It was treated as the greatest sin, and with the emergence of church as a legal religion and social force, it attained the form of legislation from the 4^th century onwards. It was during this period that the distinction between formed and unformed foetus became the focus of the analysis. Between the 5^th and 12^th centuries, even though the church condemned abortion in all circumstances, the Aristotelian distinction between ‘formed’ and ’unformed' foetus had made a significant impact.⁵ Abortion was not considered murder/homicide if the soul has not been infused into the foetus even between 1200-1500. The commentators of this period accepted the notion of delayed animation that life did not begin for some time after conception. The notion of therapeutic abortion of unanimated foetus to save the life of the mother gained support between the period of 1500-1600 from theologians. However, from the 17^th century onwards, the notion that life began sometime after conception was rejected, and soon it came to be accepted that life began from the moment of conception. From the middle of the 18^th century up to the middle of the 20^th century, the teachings of the Church developed to an almost absolute prohibition of abortion, including therapeutic abortion. The central authority of the Church, which was far more prestigious in moral matters in the period 1880-1950 than ever before in its history, dominated the development, and countries influenced by these teachings introduced laws forbidding abortion. One of the major reasons why the Catholic church condemned abortion in addition to the concept of the sanctity of life is because, for the longest period, it linked sexual activity solely with the intention of procreation and treated abortion as a sexual sin.

III. Early legal developments in abortion law

The history of abortion prohibition laws is different in common law and civil law countries. The impact of the Catholic teachings on abortion has been much stronger on the European continent than in the United Kingdom or in the USA. The early common law made a distinction between early and late abortions and recognized abortion as a crime only after “quickening," that is the point in time at which the foetus becomes capable of discernible and independent movement in utero.⁶ Even though there was no proper empirical basis, quickening was usually considered to take place between the time frame of 16 and 18 weeks into the pregnancy. This position altered when the first statute on abortion, the Lord Ellenborough’s Act, was passed in 1803, which penalised abortion before quickening as well, even though not as severely as abortion after quickening. In the former case, it was considered a simple felony, whereas, in the latter instance, it was a capital offence. Years later, the punishment for abortion was lessened, and the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, established a maximum punishment of imprisonment for life for abortion or attempted abortion.

The legal status of abortion in the USA during the early1800s was governed by the British traditional common law doctrine of quickening, under which termination of early pregnancy was not considered as an offence. The period between 1820 and 1840 witnessed the first wave of abortion legislations in the USA, mainly as a result of the efforts of both legislators and doctors to control medical practice rather than from public pressure to deal with abortion per se. It was the State of Connecticut that passed the first abortion legislation, very similar to the Lord Ellenborough’s Act in England. The early legislations had recognized the concept of “therapeutic abortion” as valid and excusable, thereby guaranteeing some safety measures to expectant mothers in cases where their physicians had reason to believe the mother's own life was at risk. At that point in time, very few states had passed abortion legislations, and since the early 1840s, abortion services were openly advertised, which witnessed an increase in the number of abortions in society. Between 1860 and 1880, primarily due to the physician's movement against abortion, numerous anti-abortion legislations were passed in America, which laid down that abortion at any stage of pregnancy was a crime. These legislations laid down the basic foundation for the abortion policies, which remained in place till the 1960s. By 1900, the transition towards the legal prohibition of abortion was complete, and the law was enforced all over the country.

After World War I, there were major social changes brought about in society. With the increased involvement of women in modern society and post-war liberalization, the voices of those demanding reform of the abortion law grew louder. During the 1930s, it was through a series of judicial interventions that punishment for abortion in England was relaxed. The courts refused to impose severe punishments for performing an abortion in cases of rape and other factors related to the health of the woman from punishment. In the years following the 2^nd World War, the public opinion regarding abortion had begun to polarize, and there was strong support for liberalization of abortion amongst the general public and practitioners alike. As a result, in 1967, the British Abortion Act establishing an indications solution was finally passed by both Houses of the British Parliament, which had immense repercussions in the USA as well. In the USA also, there were groups strongly advocating for the legalization of abortion, and in the period between 1967 and 1971, many states had either reformed or repealed their laws. During this period, many states had started to adopt some variation of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code,⁷ in which abortion laws were less stringent, thereby enabling women’s right to abortion to gain some solid ground. In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion in the USA. But the laws banning abortion, except in the case of tangible risks to the mother, remained in place in the majority of US States at that point in time.⁸ It was at this point of time that major reformation took place with the historical decision of the US Supreme Court in Roe v Wade in 1973, which pronounced the majority of the abortion laws existing at that point of time as unconstitutional and held that women were free to conduct abortion within the 1^st three months of their pregnancy without any state interference.

IV. Philosophical background of abortion debate

Before delving into the constitutional basis concerning abortion and the judiciary's response to the same in India and the USA, the author seeks to draw attention to some of the basic fundamental values inherent in the abortion dilemma through a glance at the philosophical and moral background of the issue. An abortion dilemma involves within itself the rights and interests of numerous parties, including the pregnant woman, the unborn child, the father, the parents of a pregnant minor, and a physician as well. The issue arises when the rights of each of these parties are in conflict with each other. It is such a circumstance which warrants a settled legal hierarchal position of these conflicting rights. In this paper, the author seeks to focus on the rights of the unborn child and the pregnant woman. A philosophical approach towards pro-life or pro-choice viewpoint is primarily necessary to form a legal opinion on the same. It is because one cannot advocate for a pro-life position without understanding whether a foetus is to be considered a human being or not. Similarly, to advocate for pro-choice, one must have a clear understanding of the theory of self-determination of women.

(A) Abortion from The Viewpoint of The Foetus

In order to achieve an appropriate balance between the claims of the mother and the foetus, it is imperative to understand the legal position awarded to a foetus. There needs to be clarity on the question of the foetus's status as a person in order to address the issue of right to life. It's because the foetus can have rights only if it is considered as a person. There are different opinions regarding a foetus's personhood. One viewpoint is that a foetus must be considered as a person from the point of conception, which would support the argument that abortion would amount to murder. A different viewpoint is that the foetus would attain personhood only after a specific point in its development and not at the point of conception. Yet another perspective is that the foetus is only a 'potential person' who has some claims against the mother. However, these claims would be weaker than those of a full-fledged person. Ascertaining the status of the unborn is crucial to afford a moral justification for abortion as well. Hence, it is important to have a clear picture of how we must perceive an unborn at various stages of its development and on the moral significance, we ascribe to the characteristics it is considered to possess.

The test of personhood was thoroughly discussed in the case of Roe v Wade⁹ by Justice Blackmun, who had concluded that it was not possible to defend the position of foetus as a person from the Constitutional provisions as it did not have the capacity to act like a rational human being. A person must be held responsible for his/her actions and must have moral obligations as well. There exists a number of different opinions concerning the point at which a foetus becomes a human being. The moment of conception argument, which is both theological as well as genetic, claims that from the moment of conception, the unborn is a unique individual creature with specific genetic characteristics. The argument of continuity provides that the unborn continuously goes through different phases of development, acquiring structures and new characteristics. But it is not possible to pinpoint a particular stage that is remarkably unique from its previous or succeeding stages. Only the moment of conception introduces discontinuity because of which the moment of conception can be justified as being the moment at which the foetus becomes a human being, according to this argument. Some consider various stages like the moment of implantation, the beginning of foetal brain activity, sentience should be the point at which the unborn must be treated as a human being enjoying right to life. The moment of quickening is the first decisive stage in pregnancy. The foetal movement is the first sign of its communication with the environment. Only at that moment can the foetus be perceived by the mother and others by ordinary means, and this was at the point after which abortion was prohibited under the early common law system. The foetal viability stage is the most changing criterion because an unborn child is capable of separate and independent existence regardless of the fact that it is still inside the mother's womb. The US Supreme Court affirmed several times in its constitutional practice that at the moment of viability, the state is free to prohibit abortion except when it is necessary to protect the mother's health and life.

In all these stages except the moment of viability and birth afterward, it is possible to afford only a status of potential personhood to the unborn child and not that of a person. Hence, there is no rationally precise answer to the question of when the foetus becomes a human being and therefore has a right to life which necessitates an acceptable compromise between different moral values.

(B) Abortion from The Pregnant Woman’s Viewpoint

The pregnant woman's right to abortion has been discussed in detail over the years, wherein the issue has been approached from multiple viewpoints. One of the most common perspectives is that abortion must be permissible as part of a woman's privacy. The scope of the term privacy has been interpreted to mean the right of the individual to be free from state intervention in matters which are fundamentally affecting a person. In addition to the right to privacy of a person, prohibiting abortion will have serious consequences on a woman's right to choose whether to have a child or not. It will prevent her from exercising the right to limit childbearing and will deny her reproductive autonomy. Times have progressed since a woman's main duty to society was procreation. As a result, there is a need to give priority to the physical and mental well-being of the woman and not force her to have a child she doesn't want to. The social and economic conditions of a woman may have a huge impact on her pregnancy and will affect the quality of life she will be able to provide for her child. While trying to achieve a balance between the pregnant woman's right to have an abortion with that of the unborn child, one viewpoint is that right to life of the foetus must not extend to using the body of another person without their permission. According to Judit Jarvis Thomson, the right to life does not necessarily include getting whatever we need to live, and especially it does not imply a right to use another person's body.¹⁰ The integrity of personal choice, which comes within the realm of the sanctity of life, is the fundamental value invoked to claim the woman’s right to decide on abortion. Moreover, it is the argument of many scholars that a forced pregnancy would be similar to slavery and hence violating their right to be free from servitude which is available to every person. Anti-abortion laws have the effect of violating a woman’s fundamental constitutional right of bodily integrity.

Undue restrictions on abortion, in addition to violating the personal liberty, is also violative of the right to equality guaranteed under the Constitution. Even though in Roe v Wade, the right to abortion was recognized under the Due Process clause, the subsequent years witnessed the judiciary recognizing abortion rights as an equality right as well as a liberty right. Sex equality arguments focus on the gendered impact of abortion restrictions. Laws imposing undue restrictions on abortions will have the effect of restricting a woman to equally participate in the social, political, and economic spheres of the nation. It's because the extent of their participation will de depend on their right to control their reproductive lives. The US Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood of South-eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,¹¹ invoked equality concerns to make sense of the Due Process Clause and based its decision to a great extent on the equality values. It stems from the idea that the state must not impose its stereotypical views on a woman’s role.¹²

Additionally, the right to freedom of religion is relied upon by defenders of abortion who are of the opinion that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a matter of private conscience and hence must be free from state interference. Those advocating for abortion rights claim that the argument that abortion amounts to the unjust killing of human life is rooted in specific religious beliefs, and hence imposing it on everyone who may or may not adhere to these beliefs would amount to an infringement of their religious freedom by the state. It is very evident that in order to find a constitutional basis for abortion rights, what is essential is a balance between the right to life of the unborn child and right of self-determination of the pregnant woman.

V. Fundamental rights involved in the abortion debate

Before delving into the various standards and approaches adopted by the Constitutional Courts in India and the USA regarding the right to abortion, the author seeks to individually address the various fundamental rights which are inherent in it.

The most important fundamental right which is involved in any abortion debate is the Right to Life. Under the Indian Constitution, Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty of a person, whereas, under the US Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment secures the same. Any Constitutional Court has to determine between the conflicting right to life and personal liberty of both the foetus and the pregnant woman. In addition to Right to life and Personal liberty, the abortion issue also raises questions concerning Right to Equality as well.

What is essential is to adopt a balance between the state's need to protect the right to life of the potential person and the right to privacy or right to choose of the pregnant woman under the personal liberty clause. The difference in the stance of various constitutional courts on abortion relies upon their respective position in characterizing the human foetus. For instance, the courts in US base their decision on the characterization of foetus as a person who can have legal rights, whereas, in Germany, the judiciary described the foetus not as a person, but rather as a “gestating life,” “unborn life,” “incipient life” or some equivalent reference, and characterized that life as a “legal value” of the utmost importance, thus meriting the state’s protection. This differing approach is due to the difference in constitutional concerns in distinct nations as well as their constitutional or political concerns. From a pregnant woman’s perspective, the right to life and personal liberty shall include within its scope right to health, right to live with dignity, right to privacy, and right to reproductive autonomy as well. The right to abortion is considered as a fundamental right of the woman since it falls under the right to privacy or right to be left alone by the state, which emanates from the personal liberty clause under the right to life.

VI. Judiciary’s stance on abortion rights in the usa

The most significant development in the abortion landscape took place with the decision of the US Supreme Court in January 1973 in the case of Roe v Wade¹³ recognized the constitutional right to abortion with a 7:2 majority. In this case, an unmarried pregnant woman had challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Criminal Abortion Laws and demanded a right to secure legal abortion. This case has evolved to become the cornerstone in the history of abortion jurisprudence in the United States. The court recognized the right to abortion mainly on the premise of right to privacy inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US constitution.¹⁴ The court held that during the first trimester of the pregnancy, the pregnant woman has the right to decide on abortion without any state interference. The court held that right to privacy is a fundamental constitutional right and that in order restrict that right the state must show compelling state interest. It was pointed out that the state had two compelling state interests, which were protection of the women’s health (the state can take action in regulating conditions to allow no possibility for putting a pregnant woman’s life in any kind of jeopardy) and protection of prenatal life. Thus, the right to abortion is not absolute, and at some point, in the gestation, the state's interest in a woman's health and in prenatal life must prevail. The compelling state interest is found to increase at a later stage in the pregnancy. The court held that during the first trimester, there is no compelling state interest warranting interference by the state, and hence during this period, a pregnant woman can, in consultation with the physician, decide if the pregnancy is to be terminated. It was held that state interference in pregnancy is justifiable in the second trimester only to protect maternal health since, at this point, the risks of abortion are greater than those associated with childbirth itself. It was observed that the compelling state interest in respect of foetal life starts from the moment of viability. It is clear that the court applied the strict security principle, and the test came to be called the First Trimester Test.

In the case of Doe v. Bolton¹⁵, called Roe’s companion case, there was a challenge of a Georgia law that prohibited abortions except if a doctor determined that continuing the pregnancy would endanger a woman’s life or health, if the foetus were likely to be born with a serious defect, or if the pregnancy was the result of rape. The court, in this case, relied upon Roe's decision to hold that the law was unconstitutional by upholding the woman's constitutional right to abortion prior to foetal viability. Since the decision of the court in Roe, there was a huge polarization in society between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. In the years that followed, the US government had appeared as amicus curie in numerous cases to overturn the judgment with no success.

The next major development in the abortion jurisprudence took place in the form of Planned Parenthood of South-eastern Pennsylvania v. Casey,¹⁶ wherein a new constitutional framework was developed regarding the women's "abortion liberty. It did not overrule Roe but rather set up a new standard for ascertaining abortion rights and reaffirmed the fundamental principles in the earlier judgement. In this case, the court struck down part of Pennsylvania’s abortion statute, which provided that married women must notify their husbands before having an abortion except in certain limited circumstances. The court discarded the first-trimester rule and adopted the Undue Burden Test in order to determine the validity of abortion restriction laws. This test is adopted to understand whether the state regulations place substantial obstacles in the path of a pregnant woman who is seeking an abortion. If so, then the statute must be unconstitutional. The court, in this case, reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe by holding that states cannot prohibit abortion prior to viability while rejecting the trimester test and the use of strict scrutiny for evaluating government regulation of abortions. At the same time, the court held that the state could enact legislations that pursue childbirth over abortion, so long as it was limited to persuasion and not a hindrance. The court recognized that there exists a legitimate state interest to protect the potential life of the foetus.

The Undue burden test developed in Casey was adopted by the SC in Stenberg v. Carhart¹⁷ to declare a Nebraska statute that prohibited “partial birth abortion" as unconstitutional. Subsequent to this decision, Congress passed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, 2003, which criminalized partial birth abortions. In the case of Gonzales v. Carhart¹⁸, when the validity of the Act came up before the SC, the court applied the Undue Burden test to hold that the Act did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception with a majority of 5:4. In this case, the court had adopted a rather narrow approach towards a woman's right to reproductive autonomy and has significantly strayed from the position established in Roe v Wade. In my opinion, the decision, in this case, is rather objectionable as it restricts reproductive freedom and depicts the values of a primitive and conservative era. However, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt¹⁹, the court adopted the undue burden test to hold that a statute that has the effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman’s choice while furthering a valid state interest cannot be considered as permissible means of serving its legitimate ends. In my opinion, the courts in the present times must adopt a liberal stand with respect to the abortion rights of women and uphold the rights of reproductive freedom and limit the level of state interference. There needs to be clarity on what exactly amounts to "undue burden" because otherwise, cases with similar grounds would keep ending up before the court repeatedly. The courts need to need to resort to proactive methods to ensure that the abortion dilemma does not keep raising its phantom head over and over again.

VII. Abortion laws in india

In contrast to the American position, the Right to Abortion has not had a central position in the fight for women's equal rights in India. For the longest period of time, abortions in India were regulated only by the Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 312-316. The Code did not use the term "abortion" but employs the term "miscarriage" under its provisions. Under S. 312, a woman who voluntarily causes herself to miscarry for any purpose other than to save her life will be punished with imprisonment or fine both in two circumstances, i.e., when she is with child and when she is quick with child. This provision is very restrictive towards the liberty of the woman and denies her the right to choose. The criminalization of abortion had severe negative consequences in the form of a huge number of illegal and unsafe abortions resulting in rising pregnancy-related deaths in India. It was on this premise, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, was enacted to liberalize the abortion regime in India.

Section 3 of the MTP Act permits a woman to have an abortion by a registered medical practitioner in good faith within 20 weeks of the pregnancy on the grounds that there is a grave risk of physical or mental injury to the mother or that the child is likely to be born seriously handicapped. It allows abortions on socio-economic grounds and permits consideration of a woman's economic resources, her age, her marital status, and the number of her children for the purpose of determining whether nontermination of the pregnancy will result in injury to her mental health. ²⁰ Under Section 5 of the Act, a woman can have an abortion at any period during the pregnancy if it is immediately necessary to save her life. Due to India's cultural background as a patriarchal society, the gender detection tests which were available were widely misused to conduct sex-selective abortions in the country. In response to this, the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act (PNDT) was enacted in 1994. It is claimed that the abortion policy in India is consistent with safeguarding reproductive rights as envisaged by International Conference on Population and Development (ICDP) and other international instruments.²¹ However, a look into the provisions of the MTP Act reveals that abortion is not available as a matter of right, but is rather permitted only under certain special conditions.

VIII. Judicial response to abortion rights in india

The judiciary in India has recognized the reproductive autonomy²² of a woman as part of her fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The judicial attitude towards right to abortion has significantly evolved over the years. The courts have recognized the right to reproductive choice, which is inherent at the core of liberty and personal choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

In the case of Suchitra Srivastav v UOI,²³ which is the most landmark decision of the SC with respect to abortion rights, the court recognized the right of a woman to choose whether to conceive and carry a pregnancy to its full term or to terminate, is it at the core of one’s privacy, dignity, personal autonomy, bodily integrity, self-determination and right to health as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. At the same time, the court held that in the case of a pregnant woman, there is a compelling state interest to protect the life of the unborn child and upheld the restrictions imposed by the MTP Act as reasonable. Unlike the position adopted by the Constitutional Courts in the USA, the Indian Courts have adopted a viewpoint where the state has a compelling interest since the beginning of the pregnancy.

In High Court on Its Own Motion vs The State of Maharashtra,²⁴ the Bombay HC held that forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy can cause grave injury to her mental health. If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents a violation of the woman's bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would be deleterious to her mental health. The court held that the unborn foetus does not have the status of a human entity and cannot be placed on a higher pedestal than the living woman.

The Indian Courts also recognize that the right to abortion is included within the Right to privacy which was solidified by the decision of the SC in K.S. Puttaswamy v UOI²⁵ in which it was expressed that the state can interfere with the right to privacy only if they have a legitimate state interest. Moreover, the restriction imposed by the legislature must be proportionate to the object sought to be achieved. Thus, the court has adopted the proportionality test to ascertain the validity of a restriction on the right to privacy.

The matter of Swati Agarwal v UoI,²⁶ which is sub judice before the SC has challenged the validity of Sections 3(2), 3(4), and 5 of the MTP Act as violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It is claimed that the restrictions imposed by the Act do not satisfy the Proportional test as elucidated in the Puttuswamy Judgement. Moreover, it is claimed that Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) is violative Article 14 of the Constitution as it arbitrarily discriminates between married and unmarried women. The decision of the apex court in this matter will have a huge impact on the abortion jurisprudence in India. In my opinion, the provisions of the MTP Act impose severe restrictions on a woman's right to abortion and hence needs to be evaluated.

IX. Conclusion

Abortion rights are one of the most controversial subjects in relation to life which has resulted in there being very different approaches by the Judiciary in the USA, India, and so on. To date, the courts haven't been able to have a settled position on whether pro-life or pro-choice is to be given priority. Different courts have favored one of these positions in varying degrees. A comparative constitutional analysis of the abortion jurisprudence in the USA and India reveals that the former has been more successful in upholding women's fundamental rights on the subject. India has adopted a more restrictive approach in awarding reproductive freedom to pregnant women. The difference in the courts' approach to both issues is also due to the different values attached to the subject. In the USA, abortion is mainly a subject of political and legal conflict, whereas in India, it is a subject of social, cultural, and moral conflict. It is not possible to find a perfect solution to the abortion debate, but what is essential is to arrive at a compromise that balances the right of the woman to exercise her choice and the state's interest to protect the potential life. In my opinion, the Indian judiciary must also rely upon the "Undue Burden test" in matters relating to abortion rights. The judiciary has a pivotal role in breaking down social, legal, and political barriers which are ingrained in society to alleviate the status of women in Indian society.

*****