The Supreme Court of India has held that no court possesses the authority to compel a woman, including a minor, to carry a pregnancy against her will. The ruling grounds reproductive autonomy firmly within Article 21, recognising a woman's right to make decisions about her own body as a core dimension of the right to life and personal liberty. The court emphasised that forcing pregnancy constitutes a violation of bodily integrity and dignity.

This ruling advances the constitutional doctrine of reproductive autonomy as an integral facet of Article 21. The right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 has been expansively interpreted since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which held that personal liberty cannot be curtailed except by a procedure that is fair, just, and reasonable. Subsequent rulings extended Article 21 to encompass dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy.

The right to abortion in India is governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The 2021 amendment extended the permissible gestational limit from 20 to 24 weeks for special categories including survivors of rape, minors, and women with foetal abnormalities. For pregnancies beyond 24 weeks, a Medical Board constituted under the Act must opine on foetal abnormalities.

The Supreme Court had earlier in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022) held that all women — married or unmarried — have an equal right to safe abortion. The court had categorically stated that the right to reproductive autonomy flows from the right to privacy recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

The present ruling reinforces that judicial orders cannot override a woman's bodily autonomy. Even where a court is approached for permission (typically in cases beyond 20 or 24 weeks), the court's role is to facilitate access, not to compel continuation. For minors, the ruling carries extra weight because their consent is independently protected and overriding it would compound the constitutional violation.

The test applied: the court uses a three-pronged Article 21 test — the restriction must be by law, the law must be fair/just/reasonable, and the restriction must not violate the basic structure (dignity and autonomy). Compulsion to continue pregnancy fails all three prongs.