Today, On 24th April, The Supreme Court observed that no court can compel a woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy against her will, emphasising reproductive autonomy. It permitted a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her pregnancy despite crossing seven months gestation.
The Supreme Court observed that no court can compel a woman especially a minor to carry a pregnancy against her will, and it accordingly permitted a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her pregnancy, which had crossed seven months.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the pregnant woman’s choice is more significant than that of the child to be born, and emphasized that continuing such a pregnancy could have enduring effects on the minor’s mental health, educational prospects, social standing, and overall development.
The Court further noted that compelling a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy would violate her constitutional rights.
ALSO READ: Can’t Force Rape Survivor to Carry Unwanted Pregnancy, Rules Bombay High Court
The Apex Court observed that a woman’s reproductive autonomy should be given the utmost weight, and that forcing a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it would violate her constitutional rights.
The bench said,
“The right to make decisions concerning one’s body particularly in matters of reproduction is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing unreasonable restrictions especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies such as in the instant case.
The bench added,
“No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decision autonomy but also inflict grave mental emotional and physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth,”
In the circumstances denying relief would compel the minor to endure irreversible consequences and such an approach would be contrary to the constitutional and settled principles recognising reproductive choice is a fundamental right.
The Court took note of her severe psychological distress, as well as that she had attempted suicide twice, and stated that,
“Forcing her to continue is a direct affront to her right to live with dignity.”
The Court also stated that the decision of the pregnant woman not the eventual child should be treated as central in such matters. It remarked that suggesting the minor could give away the child through adoption cannot be a relevant consideration, particularly when the pregnancy and the child to be born are unwanted.
In that context, directing the pregnant woman to carry the pregnancy to term against her wishes would undermine her welfare and effectively place the yet-to-be-born child’s interests ahead of the pregnant woman’s wellbeing.
The apex court further explained that constitutional courts must assess the complete set of circumstances by focusing on the welfare of the person seeking termination, rather than ordering the completion of the pregnancy and the birth of an unwanted child.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, submitted that the medical report pointed to a risk to the lives of both the mother and the child if the pregnancy were terminated at an advanced stage.
He further suggested that, if termination were not pursued, the child could be offered for adoption through the Central Adoption Resource Authority, with arrangements to safeguard the girl’s privacy and protect the family’s reputation.
He also stated that he would provide financial support to facilitate the process.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Allows Minor Rape Survivor to Abort Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks
It added that if constitutional courts insist that an unwanted pregnancy must nonetheless be carried forward, those who cannot obtain lawful permission would be more likely to seek out illegal abortion services or attempt to terminate secretly thereby increasing the minor’s vulnerability and exposure to serious risks.
The Court noted that the girl involved is 15 years old, that the pregnancy is unwanted, and that continuing the pregnancy would not serve the minor’s interests especially given that she has attempted to take her own life on two separate occasions.