The Supreme Court on Friday permitted an 18-year-old woman to terminate her 30-week pregnancy, underscoring that a woman “cannot be compelled” to continue a pregnancy against her will. The apex court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had equated termination of the advanced pregnancy with “foeticide”.
A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna emphasised that a woman's reproductive autonomy takes precedence over the rights of an unborn child. “The court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so,” the Supreme Court observed, according to LiveLaw, reiterating the importance of safeguarding reproductive choice.
The Bombay High Court had earlier denied permission for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and instead directed continuation of the pregnancy, suggesting that the child could be given up for adoption after birth.
Under Indian law, termination of pregnancy is permitted up to 20 weeks at the discretion of the pregnant woman. Between 20 and 24 weeks, approval from a medical board is required to determine whether termination poses a risk to the mother’s health. Beyond 24 weeks, termination can only be allowed through court intervention.
The case involved a pregnancy conceived when the girl was 17 years old. Now aged 18 years and four months, she sought permission for termination at 30 weeks. The Supreme Court noted that the pregnancy resulted from a relationship with a friend and observed that forcing her to continue would cause significant mental and physical trauma.
While the High Court had held that she could deliver the child and opt for adoption, the Supreme Court took a different view after examining the medical board’s report, which did not indicate any grave risk to her if termination were permitted.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that compelling her to carry the pregnancy to term would result in severe mental trauma due to the social stigma associated with giving birth to an illegitimate child. The Supreme Court held that her rights must be protected even at an advanced stage of pregnancy.
The bench stated that the central issue was the appellant’s unwillingness to continue with what it described as an “illegitimate” pregnancy, clarifying that whether the relationship was consensual was not a matter under consideration.
“Ultimately, the denominator is that the child is illegitimate and the mother does not want to bear the child. The mother's reproductive autonomy must be given emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so,” the court said.
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal for medical termination of the pregnancy and directed the appellant to submit a written undertaking consenting to the procedure.
