The appellant is the mother of a fifteen-year-old minor daughter. In April 2026, the appellant noticed unusual heaviness in her daughter’s abdomen, and an ultrasound on April 10, 2026, revealed a live pregnancy of approximately 27 weeks. The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship between two minors (the daughter and a seventeen-year-old friend) and was categorized as an unwanted pregnancy. After several medical practitioners refused to perform a termination, a Writ Petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi on April 13, 2026.

The High Court dismissed the prayer for medical termination on April 21, 2026. Its decision was based on a Medical Board report from AIIMS which stated the minor had no “major psychiatric disorder” and that a baby delivered at that stage would be born alive, though requiring resuscitation. The High Court also held that termination could pose a significant risk to the minor’s future reproductive health. The appellant moved the Supreme Court, noting that the minor was in enormous mental trauma and had attempted suicide twice since the pregnancy was discovered.

Reproductive Autonomy as a Fundamental Right: The Court held that the right to make decisions about one’s own body is an integral part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21. No court should compel a woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy to term against her will, as this disregards decisional autonomy and inflicts grave trauma. The Court referred to X v. Health & Family Welfare Department 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, a three-judge bench judgment which held that reproductive autonomy includes the right to choose whether and when to have children and access to safe and legal abortion. It recognized that a clinical description of pregnancy cannot capture the profound psychological consequences of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Prioritizing the Mother’s Interest over the Unborn Child: The Court emphasized that the choice of the pregnant woman is more relevant than the interest of an unborn child. It rejected the idea that a woman must be forced to give birth simply because the child could be given for adoption, stating this approach subordinates the woman’s welfare to the foetus.

Mental and Emotional Well-being: The Court critiqued the High Court’s reliance on the absence of a “formal psychiatric disorder”. It noted that the minor’s two suicide attempts clearly reflected acute anguish and severe trauma, which the law cannot remain indifferent to.

Constitutional vs. Statutory Remedies: The Court clarified that a lack of remedy under a statute (the MTP Act) does not bar a constitutional remedy. Constitutional Courts must protect individual rights even when statutory limitations are exceeded.

Refutation of Foetal Normalcy and Delay: The Court laid to rest arguments that termination should only be allowed in cases of foetal abnormality. It also ruled that the passage of time does not extinguish the right to reproductive choice, as delays are often due to a lack of awareness, financial constraints, or fear.

Safety Considerations: The Court warned that if legal termination is denied, women may be driven to illegal and dangerous abortion centers, making them even more vulnerable.

A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2026): The Court cited this recent decision where, on similar facts involving a minor girl, it allowed the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy because the pregnancy was traumatic and unwanted.