The Supreme Court’s direction permitting a 15-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy beyond 28 weeks, while warning of contempt for any delay, marks a decisive assertion of reproductive autonomy. Setting aside a Delhi High Court order rejecting the plea, the top court held that no woman—particularly a minor—can be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The central question, it said, is whether the pregnant girl intends to give birth, rather than foetal viability.
The April 24 order cautions that denying termination only pushes a woman into unregulated spaces, increasing her health risks. It emphasises that a woman’s right to abortion cannot be made dependent on the foetus’s medical condition, because that would link her rights to something beyond her control. The court also noted that delays in seeking termination often happen because of social pressure, lack of information, or problems in accessing healthcare, and that such delays should not be treated as consent to continue the pregnancy. Its conclusion—“the decision not to continue her pregnancy and seek termination with all attendant medical risk must be respected”—places lived experience above all other considerations.
The rights-based approach clearly recognises the mental trauma and social harm that women forced into pregnancy face. It also responds to a longstanding habit of judging women’s decisions using narrow legal or medical grounds. But it also raises a hard question: when “attendant medical risk” persists, shouldn’t that risk itself also be central to her decision, especially in late-term abortions? The right to autonomy alone cannot resolve questions of the woman’s health, or the need for post-procedure physical and mental care. Indian law acknowledges this tension by bringing in medical boards as the pregnancy progresses, recognising that such decisions often require specialist assessment.
Courts have ruled for or against termination, underscoring autonomy or medical opinion, as the case may be. Autonomy must remain at the heart of the decision, but it cannot be separated from medical realities and clinical risk. A balanced approach is needed, combining courts’ expertise in rights with medical boards’ risk assessments. Ultimately, what matters is that a woman receives both legal and medical support. This support must be statutorily ensured, enabling her to make a fully informed decision—one that recognises her autonomy while clearly laying out the medical consequences.
