Law Doesn't Compel Motherhood, Court Duty Bound To Protect Woman's Autonomy: Madras High Court Allows Pregnancy Termination

Allowing a 23-year-old woman to terminate her 15-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court recently observed that the law did not compel motherhood and a woman should have the freedom to decide if she wants to continue her pregnancy or not. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 272] Justice Victoria Gowri also observed that the Constitution places trust in the choice of a woman and considers her autonomy as an indispensable part of her dignity. The court added that the courts are duty-bound to protect this dignity and autonomy. “The law does not compel motherhood. Equally, it does not deny a competent adult woman the freedom to decide whether she wishes to continue a pregnancy. The Constitution places trust in the informed choice of the woman and recognises her autonomy as an indispensable component of dignity. This Court is therefore duty bound to protect that choice,” the court observed. The court was called upon to look into the issue of terminating pregnancy in a plea filed by a man, Surya. The petitioner, a final-year B-Tech student, had approached the court seeking directions to the police not to harass him by compelling him to lead a matrimonial life with the woman. The petitioner had argued that the woman had lodged a police complaint against him alleging that he had promised to marry her and later declined. He submitted that based on the complaint, the police had compelled him to appear before them and forcibly made him stand in front of a temple with the woman, garlanded them and photographed them, creating an impression that a marriage had taken place. The petitioner had thus approached the court, fearing further harassment at the hands of the police. During the hearing of the case, the woman appeared before the court and informed the court that she was pregnant and the pregnancy was conceived during her relationship with the petitioner. The petitioner still refused to marry the woman or lead a matrimonial life with her. The woman also filed an application seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy. The court then suo motu impleaded the Dean of Tirunelveli Medical College and directed the Medical College to examine the woman and filed a detailed report. Based on the examination, the court was informed that the woman was severely anaemic, but following blood transfusion her haemoglobin levels were brought to normal. The woman informed the court that she was in a consensual relationship with the petitioner. However, after pregnancy, the petitioner started distancing himself from her and ultimately refused to continue the relationship. The woman submitted that she did not wish to continue the pregnancy and forcing her to do the same would cause her severe emotional, social and psychological trauma. The court agreed. It noted that when the petitioner had refused to marry the women, forcing her to continue with the pregnancy, despite her informed decision would be an intrusion to her bodily autonomy and freedom of decision, which was against the scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. “The petitioner has, before this Court, consistently maintained his unwillingness to marry the third respondent or to establish a family unit with her. In such circumstances, compelling the third respondent to continue an unwanted pregnancy despite her informed decision would amount to a direct intrusion into her bodily autonomy and decisional freedom. The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 does not permit such an outcome. The reproductive choice of an adult woman is entitled to the highest degree of constitutional protection. This Court is therefore satisfied that the request made by the third respondent deserves acceptance,” the court said. With respect to the petitioner's prayer, the court noted that the police had already registered a case against him for an offence under Section 69 of the BNS and he had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Such being the case, the court noted that the apprehension projected by the petitioner regarding police excess would lose significance. The court, however, gave liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies under law, with respect to challenging the legality of the FIR, arrest, etc. Noting that the biological material arising out of the termination of pregnancy would be relevant evidence in the crime registered against the petitioner, the court also ordered that the foetal tissues and other biological samples should be preserved as per the established medical protocols. The court also directed the Investigating Officer to take appropriate steps for conducting DNA test as per the law. Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. R. Anand Counsel for Respondent: Mr. C. Susikumar Government Advocate, M/s. G. Subiksha, Mr. B. Saravanan, Additional Advocate General, Assisted by, M/s. M. R. Priyanka Jothi, Government Advocate (Civil side) Case Title: K Surya v The State of Tamil Nadu Citation: 2026...

Law Doesn't Compel Motherhood, Court Duty Bound To Protect Woman's Autonomy: Madras High Court Allows Pregnancy Termination

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Law Doesn't Compel Motherhood, Court Duty Bound To Protect Woman's Autonomy: Madras High Court Allows Pregnancy Termination

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers