Court exercises *parens patriae* jurisdiction to permit hysterectomy for disabled adult lacking capacity to manage menstrual hygiene.

The petitioners, parents of a 23-year-old woman (X), sought a writ of mandamus permitting a Total Abdominal Hysterectomy for their daughter

Medical assessments revealed that X suffers from Global Developmental Delay, cerebral palsy, and a seizure disorder, with an IQ of 36 and a social age of approximately 5 years

Her social maturity and drawing abilities were functioning significantly below her chronological age

The petitioners contended that X is incapable of managing menstrual hygiene, leading to recurring infections, fever, and health risks, which would worsen as they age and their caregiving capacity declines

The Court constituted a multidisciplinary Medical Board at Vanivilas Hospital, which recommended the procedure as necessary due to her permanent intellectual disability

The Court primarily relied on the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration

This precedent establishes that reproductive choices are a facet of personal liberty and that the rights of persons with disabilities cannot be curtailed solely due to their disability

The Court also applied the doctrine of parens patriae, which empowers the judiciary to act as the guardian of those unable to care for themselves, necessitating a "best-interests" determination

The Court reasoned that while reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right, the clinical evidence established that X lacks the cognitive capacity to exercise informed consent or manage her own hygiene

Distinguishing this from eugenic sterilization, the Court found the procedure was not sought for the convenience of the parents but to resolve chronic medical complications—including recurring infections and seizure-related hygiene management—that X could neither communicate nor control

The Court emphasized that the recommendation came from a multidisciplinary Medical Board, not a single practitioner, confirming the condition was irreversible and that no less-intrusive alternative was viable

By applying the "best-interests" test, the Court concluded that the procedure would safeguard X’s long-term health and dignity, especially in light of the eventual decline of her primary caregivers

It granted the writ petition and permitted the Total Abdominal Hysterectomy

The Court directed the Medical Superintendent of Vanivilas Hospital to carry out the procedure, ensure pre- and post-operative psychological support/counseling for X, and protect her dignity throughout the process

The Court further mandated that a post-operative report be submitted to the Registrar General within eight weeks of the procedure