When Supreme Court had to remind India that women own their bodies

In a significant assertion of women's reproductive autonomy, the Supreme Court on February 6 permitted an 18-year-old woman to terminate her 30-week pregnancy, decisively overturning the Bombay High Court's refusal and rejecting the lower court's suggestion that she carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption. The apex court's reasoned order was uploaded on Saturday (February 14).

The case, A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, crystallises an enduring tension in Indian abortion jurisprudence: the woman's constitutional right to bodily integrity versus judicial paternalism cloaked in concerns about foetal viability.

The facts and the HC's approach

The pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship in August 2025, when the girl was 17 years and 10 months old. While factually consensual, the relationship was legally impermissible under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, given her status as a minor at conception.

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the boy. The girl, now 18, sought termination, citing the devastating impact on her education, career prospects, and overall future.

The Supreme Court did not dismiss foetal viability as irrelevant but refused to allow it to override the woman's fundamental rights — a crucial distinction from the High Court's approach.

The Bombay High Court's January 27 order refused permission for termination, relying heavily on a medical board report from the JJ Group of Hospitals in Mumbai. The six-member specialist team had opined that at 30 weeks, termination carried a high probability of the foetus being born alive with a beating heart, requiring intensive neonatal care.

Also read: WhatsApp’s privacy policy and the myth of user choice

The High Court treated foetal viability as determinative, holding that a fetus beyond 24 weeks would likely survive. Crucially, it suggested an alternative: the girl could deliver the child, complete a normal feeding period, and then hand over the baby to an orphanage for adoption with Child Welfare Committee's assistance. It directed medical care and psychological counselling for her during this process.

This reasoning reveals a fundamental mischaracterisation.

The High Court framed termination at 30 weeks as 'feticide'—a term freighted with criminal implications and moral judgment. By conflating medical termination of pregnancy with the killing of a viable being, the court introduced an extra-statutory standard that privileges potential life over the woman's established constitutional rights.

Supreme Court's corrective

The Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan took a markedly different view. While acknowledging the advanced gestational age and the medical assessment regarding foetal viability, the court held that the exceptional facts required balancing competing interests.

Compelling the young woman to continue the pregnancy would have "irreversible consequences on her physical health, mental well-being, and future life choices". The apex court permitted termination under strict medical supervision at JJ Hospital, emphasising that "reproductive choice and decisional autonomy form an integral part of personal liberty" under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Also read: ‘Ghooskhor Pandat’ row: The heckler’s veto and test of India’s democracy

Critically, the apex court stated that such autonomy "cannot be negated solely on the basis of foetal viability, particularly where continuation of pregnancy would disproportionately burden a young woman at the threshold of adulthood".

This formulation is legally precise and constitutionally grounded. The court did not dismiss foetal viability as irrelevant but refused to allow it to override the woman's fundamental rights — a crucial distinction from the High Court's approach.

As the bench put it: "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 for a minor such as the appellant’s daughter in the instant case”.

Legal framework and its limits

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, permits termination up to 20 weeks on the opinion of one registered medical practitioner.

Between 20 and 24 weeks, two practitioners' opinions are required, but only for specified categories, including minors, rape survivors, and women with disabilities. Crucially, the Act does not expressly provide for termination beyond 24 weeks except in cases of substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board.

Also read: Why women are missing from India’s higher judiciary | Sudha Ramalingam interview

This statutory silence on post-24-week terminations sans foetal abnormality creates a legal vacuum that courts must navigate. The Supreme Court has consistently filled this gap by reference to Article 21's protection of life and personal liberty.

In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, NCT Delhi (2022), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that the decision to terminate a pregnancy vests solely with the pregnant person and that the MTP Act must be read through the constitutional lens of equality, dignity, and bodily autonomy.

Former Chief Justice DY Chandrachud observed that forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy "represents a violation of the woman's bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma".

'Foeticide' in Indian jurisprudence

The Bombay High Court's invocation of 'foeticide' is neither semantically neutral nor legally grounded. In Indian legal and public discourse, 'foeticide' is intrinsically linked to sex-selective abortion under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.

Using the term to describe a minor seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy arising from a legally impermissible relationship conflates two entirely distinct legal and moral categories.

This conflation has dangerous precedential implications. It implicitly introduces foetal rights discourse into Indian jurisprudence — a framework the Supreme Court has consistently rejected. In XYZ v. State of Gujarat (2023), the court permitted termination at 27 weeks for a rape survivor, emphasising that pregnancy resulting from sexual assault causes profound physical and mental trauma.

Also read: Why Supreme Court is concerned with marriage battles choking its docket

The court rejected the Gujarat High Court's denial based on advanced gestational age, holding that the right to terminate can be considered at later stages when medical experts certify safety and the woman consents.

Notably, that case involved no foetal abnormality — reproductive autonomy alone justified the intervention.

Paternalism disguised as compassion

The Bombay High Court's suggestion that the girl deliver the child and give it up for adoption warrants particular scrutiny. This 'solution' treats pregnancy and childbirth as trivial impositions on the woman's body and future. It ignores the medical evidence: the board's own report noted that risks and complications at 30 weeks are comparable to carrying the pregnancy near full term.

If the medical risks are equivalent, why should the court prefer forced continuation over termination when the woman has unequivocally expressed her unwillingness?

The adoption pathway fails to account for social stigma. As counsel before the SC argued, compelling an 18-year-old to give birth to what the court itself termed an "illegitimate child" exposes her to deep social stigma and lasting psychological harm.

Moreover, the adoption pathway fails to account for social stigma. As counsel before the Supreme Court argued, compelling an 18-year-old to give birth to what the court itself termed an "illegitimate child" exposes her to deep social stigma and lasting psychological harm.

Also read: What Umar and Sharjeel have lost since 2020 arrest

In a society where unmarried motherhood remains heavily stigmatised, the suggestion that she simply hand over the child post-delivery is tone-deaf to lived reality. The Supreme Court recognised this, noting that "the key consideration was the girl's reluctance to continue a pregnancy that was ex-facie illegitimate".

Judicial consistency

This case adds to a troubling pattern: a progressive Supreme Court jurisprudence on reproductive rights repeatedly having to correct restrictive high court orders.

In recent years, various high courts have denied termination permissions despite clear Supreme Court precedent, often prioritising foetal viability or imposing moralistic judgments on women's sexual autonomy. A 2023 Kerala High Court decision denied termination to a rape victim, holding that foetal abnormality must be proven — directly contradicting XYZ.

The Supreme Court's intervention here is welcome, but it highlights systemic issues. The MTP Act's silence on post-24-week terminations creates uncertainty that individual judges fill with their own views on foetal rights, women's autonomy, and morality.

Also read: In India, why being vocal about relationships is not easy for adolescents in love

Legislative clarification is urgently needed. Until then, women seeking terminations beyond 24 weeks face a judicial lottery — their constitutional rights dependent on which bench hears their petition and whether they can afford Supreme Court litigation.

Justice Nagarathna flagged this systemic concern, noting that delayed judicial decisions force women denied relief to turn to unsafe, illegal options. The irony is stark: judicial delays in the name of protecting foetal life ultimately endanger women's lives. If the Bombay High Court had granted permission when the pregnancy was 28 weeks (as reported in some accounts), the Supreme Court appeal would have been unnecessary.

Each week of delay increases medical risk and emotional trauma.

Not systemic solutions

The Supreme Court's order in A (Mother of X) reaffirms core constitutional principles: that women's reproductive autonomy is not subordinate to potential foetal life, that courts cannot compel pregnancy continuation against a woman's will, and that decisional autonomy encompasses the right to refuse motherhood regardless of gestational age when balanced against the woman's fundamental rights.

Also read: AI With Sanket | Should WhatsApp be banned in India?

Yet victories secured through individual Supreme Court appeals are not systemic solutions. The MTP Act requires urgent amendment to explicitly address post-24-week terminations, providing clear criteria that balance maternal autonomy with medical safety — not foetal viability.

Until then, every woman in this position faces the ordeal of persuading judges, commissioning medical boards, and possibly appealing to the apex court while her pregnancy advances. This shows that constitutional rights exist in theory but remain contingent on judicial benevolence in practice.