By Sanjay Raman Sinha
The Supreme Court’s recent verdict allowing the termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a minor has once again foregrounded the principle of reproductive and bodily autonomy. The ruling reinforces a core constitutional truth: forcing a woman—or a minor—to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a violation of fundamental rights, irrespective of how advanced the pregnancy may be.
A bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan set aside a Bombay High Court order that had directed the minor to carry the pregnancy to term, receive medical and psychological support until delivery, and subsequently place the child in an orphanage for adoption. The Supreme Court found this approach legally untenable and constitutionally flawed.
The case arose from a sexual relationship between a 17-year-old girl and her male friend. The girl later alleged that the relationship was forced and based on a false promise of marriage, leading to the registration of an FIR against the accused. When the minor sought permission to terminate the pregnancy, the Bombay High Court rejected her plea, effectively compelling her to complete the pregnancy.
Challenging this order before the Supreme Court, the counsel for the minor argued that forcing continuation of the pregnancy would cause severe mental trauma, compounded by social stigma attached to unwed motherhood. Accepting this submission, the Court categorically held: “The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so.” Accordingly, it permitted termination at 30 weeks.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND JUDICIAL EVOLUTION
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, the permissible limit for abortion was extended from 20 to 24 weeks for specific categories, including rape survivors, minors, and women with foetal abnormalities. Abortions between 20 and 24 weeks require the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, while those beyond 24 weeks require clearance from a medical board.
In 2022, the Supreme Court clarified that the 24-week limit applies uniformly to all women, including unmarried women, dismantling marital status as a barrier to reproductive choice. Notably, the earlier reduction of the upper limit—from 28 to 24 weeks in 1990—was driven by advances in neo-natal care, not by moral or social considerations.
In X vs NCT of Delhi (2022), the Court eloquently affirmed: “The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the state is central to the idea of human dignity.”
India’s abortion law has evolved through four distinct phases. Prior to 1971, abortion was criminalised under the IPC. The 1971 MTP Act shifted abortion into the medical domain. Judicial recognition of reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right followed through landmark rulings in Suchitra Srivastava (2009) and Puttaswamy (2017). The 2021 amendment further liberalised the regime, especially for minors and survivors of sexual violence.
In a significant 2024 observation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that reproductive freedom and the right to choose flow directly from Article 21 of the Constitution.
INDIA IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT
Globally, abortion laws vary sharply. While Roe vs Wade legalised abortion across the United States in 1973, its overturning in 2022 returned regulatory power to individual states, leading to a fragmented and often restrictive landscape.
India’s position remains distinct. Though its statutory framework is medically regulated and procedurally cautious, judicial intervention consistently safeguards individual choice. Countries like France permit abortion up to 24 weeks, while others, such as Poland, impose near-total bans. Parental consent requirements for minors also vary widely across jurisdictions.
India’s safeguards are comparatively stringent—mandating public health facilities and state responsibility for born-alive foetuses—unlike countries such as the UK or the Netherlands, which permit feticide prior to evacuation and rely heavily on specialised private clinics within national health systems.
WHY THIS VERDICT MATTERS
The significance of the present ruling lies not merely in permitting a late-term abortion, but in its clear signal to lower courts and medical authorities: bodily autonomy, consent, and lived social realities must guide decision-making. The 24-week threshold cannot be treated as an inflexible rule when confronted with the trauma of a pregnant minor.
More importantly, such cases should ideally be resolved swiftly at local and institutional levels, rather than forcing vulnerable individuals to seek relief at the doors of the Supreme Court. Compassion, constitutional values, and common sense must converge long before that point.
The post Reasserting Bodily Autonomy of Minors appeared first on India Legal.