The Supreme Court today permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a young woman, holding that the court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor at the time of conception, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, even at an advanced stage.

Hearing an appeal against a Bombay High Court order that had directed continuation of the pregnancy till full term, the Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised on reproductive autonomy, mental trauma, and social realities, observing that the decisive factor was the woman’s unwillingness to give birth.

“The question is not whether there is danger to her life. The real question is whether she wants to give birth to a child or whether she has to be forced to continue with the pregnancy,” the Court observed.

The case concerned the appellant’s daughter, who was around 30 weeks pregnant and had conceived as a minor. Though a medical board found no congenital abnormality or grave physical risk, the Court noted that mental anguish and social stigma could not be ignored.

“The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so. That would be more traumatic,” the Bench said.

Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning that continuation would allow the birth of a “healthier child” capable of adoption, the Court held that such an approach subordinated the mother’s autonomy to speculative future outcomes. “The denominator is simple; she does not want to give birth. Can the court say, even if you do not want the child, you shall deliver the child?” the Bench questioned.

The Court acknowledged the ethical complexity of balancing the rights of the mother and the unborn child, noting that a fetus at 30 weeks has a beating heart and a high chance of survival. However, it clarified that the presence of life alone cannot justify forced continuation of pregnancy.

Accepting the appeal, the Court directed JJ Hospital, Mumbai, to immediately carry out the medical termination with all necessary safeguards, and ordered the release of the operative portion of the judgment the same day, citing urgency.

“Reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis,” the Court said, adding that human considerations cannot be reduced to rigid statutory timelines.

Appearances

Petitioner- Mr. Shantanu M Adkar, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ashley Kusher, Adv. Ms. Amita Sachdeva, AOR

Respondents- Aaditya Aniruddha Pande