2024 Supreme(SC) 412

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
A (Mother of X) – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2024

IMPORTANT POINT
Medical termination of pregnancy – Consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount – In case there is a divergence in opinion of a pregnant person and her guardian, opinion of minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling court to arrive at a just conclusion.

Headnote:

(A) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Medical termination of pregnancy of minor victim of sexual assault – Plea for medical termination of pregnancy was earlier declined by High Court relying on report submitted by Medical Board – On 22 April 2024, Supreme Court, while reserving Judgment, allowed ‘X’ to terminate her pregnancy forthwith – Both parents of ‘X’ are averse to undertaking any risk to life and well-being of their daughter at this stage and would prefer to take her home and to readmit her to Sion hospital in time for her due date of delivery – Even when Court passed order on previous occasion, minor was in the thirtieth week of her pregnancy – She is now nearing end of thirty first week of pregnancy – Sole and only consideration which must weigh with Court at this stage is safety and welfare of minor – Opinion of Medical Board constituted under MTP Act must reflect effect of pregnancy on pregnant person's physical and mental health – MTP Act and reproductive right of a pregnant person gives primacy to their consent – Right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice – This right is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution – Decision to terminate pregnancy is deeply personal for any person – It is imperative that fundamental right of a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons other than to protect physical and mental health of pregnant person – RMP or Medical Board cannot be prosecuted for any act done under MTP Act in good faith. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 23)

(B) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Section 3 – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Medical termination of pregnancy of minor victim of sexual assault – When a person approaches court for permission to terminate a pregnancy, courts apply their mind to the case and make a decision to protect physical and mental health of pregnant person – In doing so court relies on opinion of Medical Board constituted under MTP Act for their medical expertise – Court would thereafter apply their judicial mind to opinion of Medical Board – Medical Board cannot merely state that grounds under Section 3(2-B) of MTP Act are not met – Medical Board must examine pregnant person and opine on aspect of risk to their physical and mental health – Opinion of pregnant person must be given primacy in evaluating foreseeable environment of person under Section 3(3) of MTP Act – Consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount – In case there is a divergence in opinion of a pregnant person and her guardian, opinion of minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling court to arrive at a just conclusion – Sion hospital shall bear all expenses in regard to hospitalization of minor over past week and in respect of her readmission to hospital for delivery as and when she is required to do so – In the event that minor and her parents desire to give the child in adoption after delivery, State Government shall take all necessary steps in accordance with applicable provisions of law to facilitate this exercise – This shall not be construed as a direction of this Court binding either parents or minor and State shall abide by wishes as expressed at appropriate stage. (Paras 27, 30, 35, 36 and 37)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal emanates from a Judgment of a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 4 April 2024 which denied minor daughter of Appellant permission to terminate her pregnancy. ‘X’ is a minor, about fourteen years of age and is alleged to have been subjected to sexual assault in September 2023. The incident did not come to the fore till ‘X’ revealed the incident on 20 March 2024 by which time she was about 25 weeks into her pregnancy. ‘X’, it has been averred, always had irregular periods and could not have assessed her pregnancy earlier.

Findings of Court:

Role of RMPs and Medical Board must be in a manner which allows pregnant person to freely exercise their choice. In present case, guardians of ‘X’, namely her parents, have also consented for taking pregnancy to term. This is permissible as ‘X’ is a minor and consent of guardian is prescribed under Section 3(4)(a) of MTP Act.

Result : Appeal disposed of with directions.