'Court Cannot Compel Any Woman To Complete Pregnancy': Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Minor's 30-Week Pregnancy
Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight,...
Observing that a Court cannot compel a woman, much less a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy, the Supreme Court on Friday permitted the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who had become pregnant while she was a minor.
A Bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, particularly in circumstances where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy.
In its order, the Court observed that what required consideration was the right of the minor child to continue the pregnancy, which, on the face of it, was “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and was facing the pregnancy due to an unfortunate situation arising from a relationship. The Bench clarified that the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault.
"what has to be considered in the instant case is the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of having the pregnancy owing to a relationship that she had.
The issue is not whether the relationship was consensual or whether it was the case of sexual assault. Ultimately the fact is that the child to be is not legitimate and secondly, the mother to be of the child does not want to bear the child.
If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman much less a minor child to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so."
Allowing the plea, the Bench directed Mumbai's JJ Hospital to undertake the medical termination of the pregnancy of the minor, while ensuring that all necessary medical safeguards are followed.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna noted the difficult moral and legal questions involved, observing that while the birth of a child ultimately results in a life, the decisive factor in the present case was the clear and consistent unwillingness of the minor to continue the pregnancy.
"It is also difficult for us but what to do. Whether we should compel her to give birth to a child? Because the child which will be born is also ultimately going to be a life. Then there is another question if she can terminate at 24 weeks why not at 30 weeks? Ultimately she doesn't want to continue the pregnancy. Bottom line is she doesn't want to give birth, that is the difficulty," Justice Nagarathna said.
Headnote
Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Reproductive Autonomy and Bodily Integrity – Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 – Supreme Court allowed the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a girl who conceived as a minor – Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's order which had declined termination on the grounds of foetal viability and the possibility of adoption - Key Principles Established – i. Priority of Maternal Rights: held that the reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity of the pregnant woman must be given sufficient emphasis over the rights of an unborn foetus; ii. Decisional Autonomy: A woman's right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is firmly rooted in her right to bodily autonomy – Noted that forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy causes "visceral" trauma and ignores the physical and mental transformations a woman's body undergoes; iii. Irrelevance of Foetal Viability: When a pregnant woman is determined to terminate and has detached herself from the pregnancy, considerations such as whether the child would be born healthy or is viable are not relevant; iv. Status of the Mother: The fact that the daughter had crossed 18 years of age by the time of the High Court order was deemed "irrelevant," as she was a minor at the time of conception and the pregnancy resulted from a relationship outside of wedlock. [Relied on X vs. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321; Paras 15-17]
Case : A (MOTHER OF X) Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA | SLP(C) No. 4774/2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 160