A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an earlier order of the Bombay High Court, which had declined permission for termination. The apex court directed Mumbai’s JJ Hospital to carry out the procedure with due medical care and necessary precautions.
The case involved a minor girl who became pregnant following a relationship with a boy from her neighbourhood. She approached the court seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy, stating that she did not wish to continue it. A medical board constituted earlier had reported that carrying the pregnancy to full term would not pose an immediate risk to the life of either the mother or the foetus.
Despite the medical assessment, the Supreme Court underscored that the absence of life-threatening risk cannot override the wishes of the pregnant woman. “A woman, and more so a minor, cannot be forced to carry a pregnancy against her will,” the bench observed, stressing that the right over one’s body is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.
During the hearing, the court questioned the rigid approach to gestational limits, noting that while the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act permits abortion up to 24 weeks in certain cases, there may be valid reasons for allowing termination even beyond that period. The bench observed that it can take time for a woman, especially a minor, to process her circumstances and arrive at an informed decision.
Justice Nagarathna cautioned that denying relief in such cases could push vulnerable women towards unsafe and illegal methods of abortion. “If courts shut their doors, women may be forced to approach unqualified practitioners, which poses serious risks to their health and lives,” the court noted.
The Maharashtra government, opposing the plea, suggested that the child could be given up for adoption or placed in an orphanage after birth. The court rejected this argument, stating that such alternatives cannot be imposed and do not supersede the minor’s expressed wishes.
The Supreme Court said it was issuing the operative portion of the order immediately to ensure timely medical intervention, adding that a detailed judgment outlining the legal reasoning would follow. The ruling is expected to have wider implications for cases involving termination of advanced pregnancies, particularly those concerning minors and survivors of vulnerable circumstances.
