“Whose Interest Do We Look Into?” Supreme Court Allows Termination Of Teen’s 30-Week Pregnancy

In a significant ruling on reproductive rights, the Supreme Court permitted the termination of a 30-week pregnancy, reiterating that a woman cannot be forced to continue a pregnancy against her will.

Emphasising that reproductive autonomy outweighs the interests of an unborn child, the top court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had refused permission for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and instead advised the continuation of the pregnancy with the option of adoption.

Supreme Court Underscores Reproductive Autonomy

A bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna ruled firmly in favour of the appellant, stating, "The court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so," while stressing the importance of reproductive autonomy.

The case involved a girl who conceived at 17 and is now 18 years and four months old, with the pregnancy having progressed to 30 weeks. The court noted that the child was conceived from a relationship with a friend and observed that forcing the girl to continue the pregnancy would cause severe mental and physical trauma.

After reviewing the medical board's findings, the bench pointed out that there was no indication of grave risk to the girl if the termination was carried out. The High Court had earlier suggested that she could give birth and place the child for adoption, but the Supreme Court chose to prioritise the girl's wishes.

Mental Trauma And Social Stigma Considered

The girl's counsel argued that compelling her to complete the pregnancy would lead to "grave mental trauma" because of the social stigma associated with giving birth to an illegitimate child. Acknowledging that the plea had come at a late stage, the court maintained that the rights of the appellant must be safeguarded.

The bench observed, "What has to be considered is ultimately the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy, which is ex-facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation owing to a relationship that she had."

Clarifying the scope of the matter, the court added, "That is not the issue. Ultimately, the denominator is the child is illegitimate and the mother does not want to bear the child. The mother's reproductive autonomy must be given emphasis. the court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so."

Court Questions Whose Interest Takes Priority

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to submit a written undertaking consenting to the procedure before the medical termination is carried out.

During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna asked, "Whose interest do we look into? An unborn child or the mother who's giving birth?" She further remarked that decisions on termination can sometimes take time.

"There are so many cases where termination takes place beyond what's stipulated under the MTP Act. And doctors say we won't do it. Where will they go? To quacks and unauthorised doctors," Justice Nagarathana said.

What The Law Says On Pregnancy Termination

Under Indian law, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act allows a woman to opt for termination up to 20 weeks. Between 20 and 24 weeks, approval from a medical board is required to determine whether ending the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother's health. Beyond 24 weeks, termination can proceed only with court approval.

The ruling once again places reproductive choice at the centre of legal interpretation, signalling the court's stance that a woman's decision regarding her pregnancy must remain paramount.