A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case focuses on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) and the constitutional rights of a pregnant person, specifically a minor. The Supreme Court reversed a Bombay High Court decision denying termination of a minor’s pregnancy due to the statutory limit of 24 weeks. At the time of the decision, the minor’s pregnancy had advanced to 30-31 weeks following a sexual assault. The judgment underscored the principles of reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and the paramountcy of the pregnant person’s consent, reaffirming constitutional guarantees under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also emphasized the duties and accountability of medical boards and Registered Medical Practitioners (RMPs) in evaluating the physical and mental health of pregnant persons, especially minors. Additionally, the Court explored the broader implications of reproductive rights and adopted inclusive language by using the term “pregnant person.”

Keywords: Reproductive autonomy, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, Fundamental rights, Minor pregnancy, Consent in abortion

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgment Cause Title
A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

ii. Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024

iii. Judgment Date
April 29, 2024

iv. Court
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI; J.B. Pardiwala, J.; Manoj Misra, J.

vi. Author
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI

vii. Citation
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 470; 2024 INSC 371

viii. Legal Provisions Involved

• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971: Sections 3(1), 3(2-B), 3(3), 3(4)(a), 3(2-C), and 5
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 376 (rape)
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Sections 4, 8, and 12
• Constitution of India: Article 21

ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x. Case is Related to Which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Medical and Health Law, Child Rights

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

This case arose from the Bombay High Court’s denial of a minor’s request for termination of a pregnancy caused by sexual assault. The case highlighted procedural delays in seeking court approval, the inconsistent stance of medical boards, and the statutory restrictions under the MTP Act. The minor was 25 weeks pregnant when the case reached the High Court and later over 30 weeks pregnant at the Supreme Court stage. The evolving jurisprudence on reproductive autonomy formed the crux of the Court’s analysis, with a specific focus on the constitutional protections offered by Article 21.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. A 14-year-old minor was sexually assaulted in September 2023. The incident came to light only in March 2024 when the minor disclosed her condition, by which time she was 25 weeks pregnant.
2. An FIR was filed against the alleged perpetrator under Section 376 IPC and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act.
3. The High Court denied permission to terminate the pregnancy based on the statutory cap of 24 weeks under the MTP Act. It relied on an earlier medical board report that ruled out fetal abnormalities.
4. The Supreme Court, while admitting the appeal, directed the formation of a new medical board at Sion Hospital, which subsequently recommended termination, citing the adverse impact on the minor’s physical and mental health.
5. Confusion ensued as the minor’s parents altered their statements regarding termination and carrying the pregnancy to term.
6. Ultimately, the parents expressed willingness to take the pregnancy to term, which the Court accepted while emphasizing the paramountcy of the minor’s welfare.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Can pregnancy be terminated beyond the statutory period of 24 weeks under the MTP Act in cases of minors or sexual assault victims?
2. What is the role of medical boards in balancing statutory limits with the constitutional rights of pregnant persons?
3. Does the consent of the minor outweigh the opinion of guardians in decisions related to abortion?
4. How does the concept of reproductive autonomy apply in the case of a minor?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The counsel argued that the pregnancy resulted from a sexual assault and significantly impacted the minor’s physical and mental health, making her eligible for termination under Sections 3(2-B) and 5 of the MTP Act.
2. It was submitted that delays in judicial and administrative processes exacerbated the minor’s suffering.
3. The petitioner emphasized that denying termination violated the minor’s fundamental rights under Article 21, particularly bodily autonomy and dignity.
4. Reliance was placed on precedents like X v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023] and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration [2009], which prioritized the pregnant person’s consent in reproductive decisions.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The respondents, including the State, cited statutory limitations under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act, which does not permit termination beyond 24 weeks unless the fetus has severe abnormalities.
2. It was argued that the medical board’s initial findings justified the denial of termination due to the absence of fetal abnormalities.
3. Concerns were raised about procedural safeguards and the necessity to preserve the life of both the minor and the fetus.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Primacy of Consent: The Court reaffirmed that the pregnant person’s consent is central to decisions on termination under Article 21.
2. Role of Medical Boards: The Court criticized inconsistent opinions from medical boards and emphasized their duty to prioritize the pregnant person’s physical and mental health over procedural rigidities.
3. Statutory Interpretation: The Court held that Sections 3(2-B) and 5 of the MTP Act allow for termination in cases involving minors and sexual assault victims, even if the pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks, provided risks to the pregnant person outweigh those of continuing the pregnancy.

b. Obiter Dicta

1. Inclusive Terminology: The use of the term “pregnant person” reflects the recognition of diverse gender identities, expanding reproductive rights jurisprudence.
2. Legislative Reform: The Court hinted at the need to reevaluate statutory limits in light of medical advancements and constitutional rights.

c. Guidelines

1. Medical boards must ensure comprehensive and reasoned opinions, considering the pregnant person’s welfare under Sections 3(2-B) and 3(3) of the MTP Act.
2. Courts must expedite hearings in sensitive cases to minimize delays and trauma.
3. Medical practitioners and boards should operate without fear of prosecution if actions are taken in good faith under the MTP Act.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reflects a progressive interpretation of reproductive rights by aligning statutory provisions with constitutional guarantees. It underscores the necessity of reforming procedural and legislative frameworks to prioritize the dignity and autonomy of pregnant persons, particularly minors and vulnerable groups.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. X v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023] 9 SCC 433
2. XYZ v. State of Gujarat 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573
3. Z v. State of Bihar [2018] 11 SCC 572
4. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration [2009] 9 SCC 1

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
4. Constitution of India