3 min readNew DelhiFeb 7, 2026 04:07 AM IST
First published on: Feb 7, 2026 at 04:07 AM IST
“If a woman does not want to deliver a child, can the Supreme Court compel her to do so?,” said Justice B V Nagarathna while allowing termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a woman who was a minor when she conceived.
The SC was hearing an appeal filed by the woman’s mother against the January 27 Bombay High Court ruling that refused to allow the termination. The HC had said that the child be delivered and given for adoption instead. “Even if she doesn’t want to deliver, can the court say she has to deliver? Then they will stop coming to court. This is not a couple. This is an illegitimate child. She doesn’t want it. So who’s right should we consider?” Justice Nagarathna observed.
The bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, directed the mother to give a written undertaking consenting to the medical termination of pregnancy of her daughter. “The appellant’s daughter is presently at J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai. We direct the J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai to conduct the procedure of Medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the appellant herein by bearing in mind all medical safeguards,” the court said.
Justice Nagarathna said that the woman may not have any physical issues in delivering but it’s the mental aspect that’s important. “If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman much less a minor child to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so,” the bench said. Making it clear that the arguments for and against MTP are equally persuasive, the bench ordered: “What has to be considered is ultimately the right of the minor child to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie illegitimate in as much as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation owing to a relationship that she had.”
It added: “We are not on whether the relationship was consensual or not. That is not the issue. Ultimately the denominator is the child is illegitimate and the mother does not want to bear the child. The mother’s reproductive autonomy must be given emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman much less a minor child to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so.”
Justice Nagarathna pointed to the moral dilemma confronting the court in the case. “It is also difficult for us but what to do… Whose interest do we look into? An unborn (illegitimate) child or the mother…Then there is another question if she can terminate at 24 weeks, why not at 30 weeks?…Bottom line is she doesn’t want to give birth, that is the difficulty,” the judge said.
She said that “sometimes it takes time to take a decision whether to terminate or not. There are so many cases where termination takes place beyond what’s stipulated under the MTP Act. And doctors say we won’t do it. Where will they go? To quacks and unauthorised doctors.”
Justice Nagarathna said that the woman may not have any physical issues in delivering but it’s the mental aspect that’s important. 
Share
