On Friday, the Supreme Court permitted an 18-year-old girl to end a 30-week pregnancy, stating that a woman "cannot be forced" to carry on with a pregnancy against her wishes. The highest court overturned the Bombay High Court's decision, which had likened the termination of the advanced pregnancy to "foeticide".
Justice BV Nagarathna, part of a Supreme Court bench, reaffirmed that a woman's right to reproductive autonomy takes precedence over the rights of an unborn child.
According to LiveLaw, the Supreme Court emphasized the significance of reproductive autonomy by stating that no woman can be forced by the court to carry a pregnancy to term if she chooses not to.
The Bombay High Court ruling denied the request for a Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) and instead instructed that the pregnancy should continue, with the possibility of placing the child for adoption.
Under Indian law, a pregnant woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy up to 20 weeks. Between 20 and 24 weeks, a medical board must be consulted to determine if terminating the fetus poses a risk to the mother's health. Beyond 24 weeks, only the court can authorize the procedure.
Conceived while the teenager was underage
The young woman conceived at the age of 17. She is now 30 weeks into her pregnancy and is currently 18 years and 4 months old.
The Supreme Court stated that the child was conceived from a relationship with a friend and that continuing the pregnancy would cause the girl mental and physical distress. However, the High Court believed she could deliver the baby and then put the child up for adoption.
The highest court's panel reviewed the medical board's findings and concluded that allowing the termination posed no significant danger to the girl.
The attorney representing the girl contended that compelling her to carry the pregnancy to term would inflict severe psychological distress because of the societal shame associated with having a child out of wedlock.
The rights of women take precedence over those of the unborn.
The court stated that the appellant's rights must be safeguarded, even if the choice to undergo an abortion was made at a later stage.
The panel stated that the primary factor was the girl's reluctance to proceed with a pregnancy deemed 'illegitimate.' It further explained that the consensual nature of the relationship leading to the child's conception was not a matter for consideration.
In essence, the key point is that the child is born out of wedlock and the mother does not wish to carry the pregnancy to term. The mother's right to make decisions about her own reproductive health should be prioritized. The highest court stated that no woman can be forced to continue a pregnancy if she chooses not to.
Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal for the medical termination of the pregnancy, instructing the appellant to provide a written agreement consenting to the procedure.