No court can compel a minor to continue unwanted pregnancy, rules SC

Stating that no court has the authority to compel a woman, particularly a minor, to continue a pregnancy against her wishes, the Supreme Court on Friday (April 24) permitted a girl in her early teens to undergo a medical termination of her pregnancy, which had exceeded seven months.

Also read: When Supreme Court had to remind India that women own their bodies

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the decision of the pregnant woman holds more significance than that of the unborn child. They highlighted that the continuation of such a pregnancy may have enduring effects on the minor's mental well-being, educational opportunities, social status, and overall growth.

Reproductive autonomy of highest importance: SC

The apex court remarked that the reproductive autonomy of a woman must be accorded the highest importance, and if a woman, carrying an unwanted pregnancy, is compelled to continue it, then her constitutional rights would be violated.

“The right to make decisions concerning one's body, particularly in matters of reproduction, is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing unreasonable restrictions, especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies, such as in the instant case,” the bench said.

Apex court backs women, especially minors

“No court ought to compel any woman, and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decision autonomy but also inflict grave mental, emotional and physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth,” it added.

Also read: Audit for teenage pregnancies made mandatory in Karnataka

In the circumstances, denying relief would compel the minor to endure irreversible consequences, and such an approach would be contrary to the constitutional and settled principles recognising reproductive choice as a fundamental right.

Stressing that the choice of the pregnant woman is relevant rather than that of the unborn child, the bench said, “It is easy to say that if the pregnant woman is not interested in raising the child, she may give away the child in adoption and, therefore, she must give birth to the child. That cannot be a consideration, particularly in cases where the child to be born is unwanted.

“In such a situation, directing the pregnant woman to give birth to the child against her wishes and, therefore, continue her pregnancy would negate the welfare of the pregnant woman and make it subordinate to the child yet to be born.”

Also read: No court can force minor to carry pregnancy against her will: SC

It also said the constitutional courts must weigh the circumstances in which a case in relation to the welfare of the pregnant woman has to be considered rather than life which is still to see the light of day.

According to the bench, “The constitutional Court ought to weigh all facts and circumstances from the lens of the party who intends to terminate the pregnancy and is willing to undertake the medical risks rather than directing completion of the pregnancy and giving birth to an unwanted child.

“If the constitutional Court states that even an unwanted pregnancy has to be continued then instead of approaching the court for permission parties then visit illegal abortion centres or secretly undergo termination of such a pregnancy which would make the pregnant woman more vulnerable and exposed to dangers.”

Speaking about the latest case, the apex court said the minor involved is 15 years old, and the pregnancy is unwanted and continuing the pregnancy is not in the interest of the pregnant minor, particularly when she has attempted to foreclose her life a couple of times.

(With agency inputs)