1. A minor sought medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit; the High Court denied the request, citing the viability of the foetus and potential for post-birth adoption. (Para 2 , 3 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 489
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
A (Mother of X) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4774 of 2026)
Decided On : 06-02-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv. Mr. Ashley Cusher, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv. Ms. Amita Sachdeva, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv. Mr. Ashley Cusher, Adv. Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv. Ms. Amita Sachdeva, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Arunima Das, Adv.
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.
Headnote:(A) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Beyond 27 weeks - Constitution of India - Articles 21 & 15(3) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 & 8; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Section 64(2)(i) - Unwanted pregnancy in minor daughter resulting from physical relations with friend, discovered at 23 weeks, progressed to 28-30 weeks - FIR lodged - Writ sought for termination citing physical/mental health impact, societal stigma - Medical Board reported foetus viable, no anomalies, termination possible but with premature birth risk - High Court denied permission, directed continuation and adoption option deeming termination foeticide - Held: Reproductive autonomy and bodily autonomy of pregnant woman paramount; court cannot compel continuation of unwanted pregnancy causing trauma, especially for former minor; foetus dependent on mother, no separate identity endangering her health; rights prevail over viable foetus interests. (Paras 10-17)
(B) Reproductive rights include choice to terminate, free from coercion; unwanted pregnancy consequences on body/mind rooted in Art.21; societal factors not to restrict access. (Para 17 quoting prior judgment)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-mother sought termination of minor daughter's pregnancy beyond statutory limit; daughter unwilling due to trauma and stigma; High Court refused relying on foetal viability and prior precedent.
Findings of Court:
Termination permitted at specified hospital with medical safeguards; appellant to provide written undertaking.
Issues: Whether to allow medical termination beyond 27 weeks for unwanted pregnancy in former minor unwilling to continue due to mental/physical trauma and stigma vs. foetal viability and adoption.
Ratio Decidendi: Prioritizing woman's reproductive and bodily autonomy over foetus; forcing continuation traumatic, contrary to Arts.21 & 15(3); depends on facts, here relief granted as petitioner detached from pregnancy.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued that forced pregnancy causes severe mental trauma and social stigma, while the state submitted that the court must weigh the mother's health against the viable foetus's interests. (Para 13 , 14 )
3. The court observed that reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity allow a woman to decide on pregnancy termination regardless of foetal viability or the stage of pregnancy. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. A pregnant woman's reproductive autonomy constitutes a fundamental right to bodily integrity, permitting medical termination of pregnancy to avoid physical and mental trauma despite foetal viability. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. The High Court order was set aside and permission was granted for medical termination of pregnancy with necessary medical safeguards. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
6. Can a court compel an individual to continue a pregnancy against their will?
No, forced continuation of pregnancy violates the right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy. The court cannot compel a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, as it causes severe physical and mental trauma and restricts her future prospects. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. Is the viability of a foetus an absolute bar to medical termination of pregnancy?
Not necessarily. The focus must be on the pregnant woman's intention and her entitlement to decide on matters concerning her sexual and reproductive health, protected as a fundamental right. (Para 15 , 17 )
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 28th 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 weeks. The request was made by the appellant for seeking medical termination of her daughter’s pregnancy since the said pregnancy was owing to a relationship that her daughter had with her friend. It is stated that the continuation of the pregnancy resulting in delivery would be traumatic both mentally as well as physically to the daughter and adversely affect her future prospects. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant approached the High Court.
11. The High Court was
