The court upheld the right to reproductive autonomy, affirming women's dignity and decision-making in pregnancy termination under Article 21.

1.The instant writ petition has been filed by the prosecutrix through her natural guardian mother seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy.

2. In compliance of order dated 26/08/2025 passed by this Court, today, learned State counsel has passed on communication dated 28/08/2025 issued by Head of the Department, Obstetrics and Women Disease Department/Gynecological Department, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior containing proceedings of expert board meeting held on 28/08/2025 wherein prosecutrix was examined by team of medical expert and the Medical Board has opined that medical termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix is possible with appropriate facilities. The prosecutrix is aged about 16 years and on the date of medical examination her pregnancy was about 20 weeks. The communication dated 28/08/2025 is taken on record.

3. Supreme Court considering the right of personal liberty guaranteed under Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY Article 21 of the Constitution of India has held that unmarried woman has right to decide in respect of the pregnancy.

4. Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2023) 9 SCC 433, after considering constitutional values animating the interpretation of MTP Act and the MTP rules dealt with the right to Reproductive Autonomy of the women and has held as under:-

"64. When interpreting a sub-clause or part of a statutory provision, the entire section should be read together with different sub-clauses being a part of an integral whole. [Balasinor Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606; Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 973 : AIR 1962 SC 1543] In terms of Section 3 (2)(b) of the MTP Act, not less than two RMPs must, in good faith, be of the opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy of any woman who falls within the ambit of Rule 3-B would involve : (i) a risk to her life; (ii) grave injury to her physical health; or (iii) grave injury to her mental health. Alternatively, not less than two RMPs must, in good faith, be of the opinion that there is a substantial risk of the child suffering from a serious physical or mental abnormality, if born. Women who seek to avail of the benefit under Rule 3- B of the MTP Rules continue to be subject to the requirements of Section 3 (2) of the MTP Act.

65. One of the grounds on the basis of which termination of pregnancy may be carried out is when the continuance of a pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the mental health of the woman. The expression “grave injury to her physical or mental health” used in Section 3 (2) is used in an overarching and all-encompassing sense. The two Explanations appended to Section 3 (2) provide the circumstances under which the anguish caused by a pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of a woman.

66. Courts in the country have permitted women to terminate their pregnancies where the length of the pregnancy exceeded twenty weeks (the outer limit for the termination of the pregnancy in the unamended MTP Act) by expansively interpreting Section 5 , which permitted RMPs to terminate pregnancies beyond the twenty-week limit when it was necessary to save the life of the woman. In X v. Union of India [ X v. Union of India , (2017) 3 SCC 458 ] , Mamta Verma v. Union of India [ Mamta Verma v. Union of India , (2018) 14 SCC 289 ] , Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India [ Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India , (2017) 3 SCC 462 ] , Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India [ Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India , Signature Not Verified Signed by: SANJAY (2018) 13 SCC 339 ] , this Court permitted the termination of post twenty- week pregnancies a