01 Read
What happened
The Supreme Court, through Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, permitted a 15-year-old girl to terminate a pregnancy exceeding seven months. The Court held that no court can compel a woman, especially a minor, to continue a pregnancy against her will. Reproductive autonomy was declared an integral part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21. The Court rejected the adoption alternative argument and warned that denial of relief risks driving individuals toward unsafe, illegal abortions.
02 Understand
Why it matters
This ruling deepens the constitutional architecture around Article 21 by recognising reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right, not merely a statutory benefit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
The MTP Act permits termination up to 20 weeks on general grounds and up to 24 weeks for special categories (including minors and survivors of sexual assault) under the 2021 amendment. Beyond 24 weeks, termination requires a Medical Board opinion and court intervention. This case involved a pregnancy beyond seven months, making court approval essential — and the Supreme Court's reasoning therefore goes beyond the statute.
Constitutionally, the judgment sits at the intersection of three recognised rights under Article 21: the right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017), bodily autonomy, and the right to health. The Court's insistence that reproductive choices fall within 'personal liberty' echoes the logic of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Supreme Court first explicitly linked reproductive choice to Article 21 for a mentally ill rape survivor.
Critically, the Court rejected the State's adoption argument — establishing a hierarchy where the pregnant person's bodily integrity ranks above third-party welfare solutions. For minors, this carries additional weight because their consent, not a guardian's preference, governs the decision.
The ruling also invokes the harm-avoidance rationale: refusing relief foreseeably causes greater constitutional harm by channeling individuals into dangerous illegal abortions, making judicial denial itself a rights violation.
The MTP Act permits termination up to 20 weeks on general grounds and up to 24 weeks for special categories (including minors and survivors of sexual assault) under the 2021 amendment. Beyond 24 weeks, termination requires a Medical Board opinion and court intervention. This case involved a pregnancy beyond seven months, making court approval essential — and the Supreme Court's reasoning therefore goes beyond the statute.
Constitutionally, the judgment sits at the intersection of three recognised rights under Article 21: the right to privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017), bodily autonomy, and the right to health. The Court's insistence that reproductive choices fall within 'personal liberty' echoes the logic of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Supreme Court first explicitly linked reproductive choice to Article 21 for a mentally ill rape survivor.
Critically, the Court rejected the State's adoption argument — establishing a hierarchy where the pregnant person's bodily integrity ranks above third-party welfare solutions. For minors, this carries additional weight because their consent, not a guardian's preference, governs the decision.
The ruling also invokes the harm-avoidance rationale: refusing relief foreseeably causes greater constitutional harm by channeling individuals into dangerous illegal abortions, making judicial denial itself a rights violation.
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial