Reproductive and bodily autonomy of pregnant woman, even former minor, prevails over viable foetus rights; court cannot compel unwanted pregnancy continuation causing trauma, permitting termination beyond 27 weeks.

JUDGMENT

NAGARATHNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of 2026 by which the appellant’s request for medical termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter “X” (presently she is stated to have crossed 18 years of age) was declined and instead certain directions were issued for continuation of the pregnancy and to give birth to a child, the appellant is before this Court.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is the mother of the daughter who at the relevant time was stated to be a minor. The daughter of the appellant herein is alleged to have indulged in physical relations with a friend and as a result conceived. In January 2026, the daughter informed the appellant of abdominal pain and not having menstruated for a few months. Upon being medically examined, it was revealed that she was about 23 weeks’ pregnant.

4. An FIR bearing No.3/2026 came to be lodged by the appellant against the friend of the minor daughter under Sections 4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”, for short) and Section 64(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”, for short) at the Srinagar Police Station, District Thane Sehar, Maharashtra.

5. The appellant herein preferred Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of 2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking urgent medical termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter, on the grounds of the negative impact such pregnancy would have on the minor daughter’s physical and mental health, as well as on her societal standing and future prospects.

6. By interim order dated 23.01.2026, the High Court directed the minor daughter of the appellant herein to undergo examination by the Medical Board of Sir J.J. Hospital at 3:00 PM and sought opinion on questions relating to the stage of pregnancy, whether termination could take place and if yes, by what method and whether any health risk would be faced by the minor daughter if such termination was effectuated.

7. The Medical Board in its Report stated that the minor daughter of the appellant was in her 28^th week of pregnancy, that the foetus did not possess any congenital anomalies, that termination was possible but that Sir J. J. Hospital did not possess the expertise to carry out the specific procedure required and that termination at this stage may result in the premature birth of the foetus.

8. By the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, the High Court refused to grant permission for the medical termination of pregnancy on the grounds that the minor daughter had attained majority as on the date of the order, that the child to be born could be given up for adoption and that termination in these facts and circumstances would amount to foeticide. The High Court heavily relied on the judgement of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of X vs. Union of India , 2023 INSC 919, wherein permission was not granted for medical termination of pregnancy when the foetus was determined to be viable.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the first respondent-State. We have perused the material on record as well as the impugned order.

10. The issue which arises for our consideration in this case is with regard to the disinclination of the appellant’s daughter herein to continue with the pregnancy and to give birth to a child. The appellant’s daughter is presently pregnant for thirty