IN a judgment that echoes far and wide in its implications for women’s rights and personal autonomy, the Supreme Court of India recently acquitted a woman who had been previously convicted of killing her newborn child. The judgement serves not only as a testament to the indomitable nature of the right to privacy but also as a stark reminder of the challenges women face due to societal stereotypes and gendered biases.
Case background
The case traces its origins to 2004 in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. A woman, living by herself after being deserted by her husband, was accused of killing her newborn baby after allegedly conceiving with another man in the village. Following the discovery of a deceased child’s body, the trial court had sentenced her to life imprisonment, a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2010. The core of the prosecution’s argument was founded on the presumption that the woman had given birth to the child and later killed it.
Misplaced assumptions and flawed conclusions
The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence and witness statements, established that the woman’s conviction had been primarily based on circumstantial evidence. Strikingly, no witnesses could conclusively and beyond a reasonable doubt, confirm that the child in question belonged to the accused woman.
Both the trial court and the High Court had seemingly made the grievous error of letting societal norms influence their judgment. Their decisions seemed predicated on the idea that the woman, because she was living alone and was pregnant, had likely committed the crime. This underlying assumption effectively reinforced gendered stereotypes and societal biases against women, especially those who defy traditional roles.
Reproductive privacy: The inviolable right
In a ground-breaking move, the Bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, underscored the inviolable nature of a woman’s right to privacy, especially concerning her reproductive choices. They stated unequivocally that a woman’s decisions regarding her body and reproductive choices fall firmly within the realm of her privacy. The court astutely noted that thrusting guilt upon a woman without concrete evidence, particularly because she was living by herself, only serves to reinforce cultural stereotypes.
Justice Karol, penning the verdict for the Bench, evocatively noted that the right to privacy is the cornerstone of human dignity. He went on to emphasise that in many civilisations, privacy is cherished, and a woman’s right to equality and privacy concerning matters of bodily and psychological integrity is an absolute imperative.
Drawing a parallel to the 2017 landmark judgment in KS Puttaswamy which recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, the court reinforced that matters like family, marriage, procreation, and sexual orientation are integral to individual dignity.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s verdict on October 19, 2023, is emblematic of the changing legal landscape in India. By setting aside the judgments of the courts below, the apex court has sent a powerful message about the sanctity of a woman’s right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and reproductive choice.
In the face of gendered stereotypes and societal prejudices, this judgement stands as a beacon of hope for all women, emphasising that they are not merely subjects to societal norms but are individuals with the full spectrum of constitutional rights.
