The Supreme Court permitted the medical termination of a pregnancy in advanced gestation, holding that a court cannot compel any woman, particularly a minor, to continue an unwanted pregnancy. The Bench emphasised that the reproductive autonomy of the pregnant girl must be given due weight, especially where she has clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy. The court’s order arose from an appeal in which the High Court’s earlier decision to direct continuation of the pregnancy was challenged. The Supreme Court observed that what required consideration in the case was the right of the minor to decide on continuation of her pregnancy, noting that the circumstances of her pregnancy were “ex facie illegitimate” because she had conceived as a minor and was now facing the situation due to an unfortunate relationship. The court clarified that its focus was not on whether the relationship leading to the pregnancy was consensual or a result of sexual assault but rather on the minor’s right to choose regarding her pregnancy. The Bench stated that ultimately the fact remained that the unborn child was not legitimate and that the prospective mother did not wish to bear the child, and therefore her reproductive autonomy should be accorded sufficient emphasis. The Supreme Court emphasised that no woman, much less a minor, can be compelled by a court to complete her pregnancy if she does not intend to do so, asserting that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental consideration in such matters. The court noted that the central issue before it was the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy that was ex facie illegitimate, and that this right could not override the expressed unwillingness of the minor to carry the pregnancy to term. Rejecting the High Court’s earlier direction that had effectively compelled continuation of the pregnancy with the alternative option of adoption, the Supreme Court directed the appropriate hospital to undertake the medical termination procedure, ensuring that all necessary medical safeguards were followed.
While acknowledging the difficult moral and legal questions involved in the matter, the bench highlighted that although the birth of a child ultimately results in a life, the decisive factor in the case was the clear and consistent unwillingness of the minor to continue her pregnancy. One of the judges observed that it was a difficult decision for the court, posing the question of whether a woman should be compelled to give birth to a child when she did not want to, particularly when she had the desire to terminate the pregnancy. The Bench also raised the question of why, if termination is permitted up to a certain point under law, it should not be allowed at a later gestational stage when the pregnant person did not wish to continue, noting that the bottom line was the minor’s unwillingness to give birth. In delivering this reasoning, the Supreme Court underscored that the autonomy of the pregnant individual to make choices about continuation or termination of pregnancy is central to the matter before it. The order directed the hospital to proceed with the medical termination of the pregnancy, subject to the fulfilment of necessary medical procedures and safeguards, and stressed that the minor’s right to decide on her pregnancy must be respected, even at an advanced stage of gestation.
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court reiterated that reproductive autonomy is an essential element of personal liberty and dignity, and that such autonomy cannot be compromised by forcing a woman, and particularly a minor, to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will. The court’s emphasis on the minor’s expressed unwillingness to continue the pregnancy and the need to give due weight to her reproductive autonomy reflects a broader legal recognition of individual choice in matters concerning bodily integrity and personal decision-making. The order to allow termination of the 30-week pregnancy was framed within this context, with the Supreme Court ensuring that the procedures to be undertaken would adhere to all necessary medical and legal requirements, thereby facilitating the exercise of the minor’s reproductive choice without undue compulsion to continue the pregnancy. The court’s ruling thus highlighted the importance of respecting a pregnant person’s decision, even at a stage beyond the time frames typically contemplated under general medical termination statutes, when such decision is consistently and clearly expressed. The Supreme Court’s direction underscored the principle that compelling continuation of pregnancy against the will of the woman or minor is contrary to fundamental rights associated with bodily autonomy, and that compliance with medical safeguards should accompany any termination permitted under such exceptional circumstances.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.