Directing a woman to continue with her unwanted pregnancy will be a direct affront on her right to live with dignity and reproductive autonomy, while rendering her “subordinate” to the child yet to be born, the Supreme Court held on Friday, as it permitted a 15-year-old Delhi girl to terminate her over 28-week pregnancy.
A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored that constitutional courts must prioritise the wishes and welfare of the pregnant woman over procedural and statutory limitations under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act when faced with cases of unwanted pregnancies likely to cause severe mental and physical trauma.
Allowing the minor, who has been admitted at AIIMS Delhi since April 10, to undergo medical termination, the court made it clear that “no court ought to compel any woman, and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will.”
Also Read | SC lauds 92% turnout in Bengal polls, says voting strengthens democracy
The ruling articulated reproductive choice as a core constitutional guarantee. The bench held that the right to make decisions concerning one’s body, particularly in matters of reproduction, is an intrinsic facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21.
“If the pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to continue such a pregnancy, then the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman would be breached,” noted the court.
The bench stressed that the welfare and best interests of the mother must take precedence, cautioning against approaches that render her “subordinate to the child yet to be born.” In cases of unwanted pregnancy, the court said, directing continuation would negate her dignity, autonomy, and long-term well-being.
The MTP Act, first enacted in 1971 and then amended in 2021, allows all women to undergo abortion legally for up to 20 weeks, and gives a further extension to women on account of mental anguish, rape, assault, and health complications, among others.
Also Read | Supreme Court slams Mamata Banerjee over ED raid obstruction, says ‘democracy in jeopardy’
The ruling is expected to have wider implications for how courts approach late-term abortion cases, particularly involving minors, reinforcing that constitutional protections of dignity, autonomy, and decisional privacy cannot be curtailed by rigid statutory thresholds where the pregnancy is unwanted.
The ruling also clarified the role of constitutional courts when statutory remedies are unavailable, particularly in cases where pregnancies cross the gestational limits prescribed under the MTP Act.
Rejecting a rigid application of statutory timelines, the bench said that courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 must weigh the facts from the perspective of the woman seeking termination.
“Can the constitutional court say that since the statutory remedy is not available, no constitutional remedy would also be available? That cannot be the approach,” held the court, adding that such an interpretation would drive women towards unsafe and illegal abortion centres.
The court warned that denying relief in such circumstances could expose women, especially minors, to grave risks, including resort to unregulated procedures that may cause irreversible harm.
The bench noted the minor’s psychological distress, including reported attempts to take her own life, observing that forcing continuation of the pregnancy would have “long-lasting repercussions” on her mental health, education, social standing, and overall development.
The pregnancy, the court noted, arose out of a consensual relationship between two minors and was unequivocally unwanted. The girl had clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue with it and was prepared to undergo the medical risks associated with termination.
The court held that denying relief to her would compel her to endure “irreversible consequences” and run contrary to settled constitutional principles recognising reproductive choice as a fundamental right, as it set aside the Delhi High Court’s April 21 order, dismissing a petition by the minor’s mother to let her abort the 28-week foetus.
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly emphasised that the court cannot substitute its own sense of compassion for the express wishes of the pregnant minor. “We cannot compel a lady to undergo pregnancy. It will be against her bodily autonomy and liberty,” remarked the court, even as the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, flagged concerns over the risks involved at an advanced stage of pregnancy and the state’s willingness to take care of the girl and the child if she completed the full term.
The bench pointed out that in cases of unwanted pregnancies, compelling continuation could push women towards unsafe alternatives. “If we stop entertaining such pleas, they will go to illegal centres and quacks,” it cautioned.
The girl’s mother was represented through advocates Amit Mishra and Rahul Sharma.
In a telling remark capturing the complexity of the issue, the court observed, “In a case like this, there is no question of winning. Everyone loses.”
Directing that the procedure be carried out at AIIMS Delhi with all necessary medical safeguards, the court required the minor’s guardian to submit an undertaking consenting to the termination.
About the Author
