Karnataka High Court permitted hysterectomy for a 23-year-old woman with severe intellectual disability, raising complex questions on reproductive autonomy. The judgment highlights the legal tension between Section 10 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (requiring free consent) and the doctrine of parens patriae when women lack capacity to consent. Landmark Supreme Court cases on abortion rights for intellectually disabled women (Suchita Srivastava, Z v. State of Bihar) further shape this debate. For exam aspirants, this is a critical intersection of Constitutional law (Article 21), disability rights, and medical ethics.
Exam Lens
Quick Exam Facts From News
1-Minute Revision
- ›Key Legal Provision: Section 10, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
- ›Landmark SC Case (Hysterectomy): Dr. Narendra Gupta v. Union of India (2023)
- ›Target this Data: Section 10 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – prohibits forced sterilization.
- ›Target this Nodal Body: Union Health Ministry’s 2022 Guidelines to Prevent Unnecessary Hysterectomies – mandated by SC in Dr. Narendra Gupta case.
- ›Target this Legal Point: Article 21 – Supreme Court recognized reproductive choice as part of personal liberty in Suchita Srivastava (2009).
Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.
Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.