A (MOTHER OF X) versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 29-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 470 : 2024 INSC 371
A (Mother of X) 
v. 
State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024)
29 April 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud,* CJI, J.B. Pardiwala and 
 Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the opinion of the medical board constituted 
under the MTP Act to reflect the effect of the pregnancy on the 
pregnant person’s physical and mental health; that the MTP Act 
and the reproductive right of a pregnant person giving primacy to 
their consent; and the usage of term ‘pregnant person’ instead of 
term ‘pregnant woman’.
Headnotes
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – Termination 
of pregnancy – 14 year old girl subjected to sexual assault, 
sought permission to terminate her pregnancy – Denied by the 
High Court on the ground that the pregnancy exceeded the 
statutory period of twenty-four weeks – In appeal, this Court 
on basis of the fresh report of the medical Board, allowed 
termination of pregnancy – When the said order passed, the 
minor was in the thirtieth week of her pregnancy – Thereafter, 
minor girl’s parents changing their statements, and matter 
again before this Court:
Held: Sole and only consideration which must weigh with the 
Court at this stage is the safety and welfare of the minor – In view 
thereof, the earlier order passed by this Court is recalled – Said 
decision made in light of the decisional and bodily autonomy of 
the pregnant person and her parents – Performing a procedure 
for termination of an advanced pregnancy, gestational age of the 
fetus nearing end of thirty first week, is subject to risks involving 
the well-being and safety of the minor as explained by the medical 
team at the hospital – Guardians of the girl, namely her parents, 
also consented for taking the pregnancy to term, as permissible 
u/s. 3(4)(a) – View of the minor girl and her parents to take the 
pregnancy to term in tandem of the MTP Act – Furthermore, the 
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
471
A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice 
of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with the termination 
– Act or indeed the jurisprudence around abortion developed by 
the courts leave no scope for interference by family or partner 
of a pregnant person in matters of reproductive choice – Role of 
the registered medical practitioners-RMPs and the medical board 
must be in a manner which allows the pregnant person to freely 
exercise their choice – In view thereof, the hospital directed to bear 
all the expenses in regard to the hospitalization of the minor over 
the past week and in respect of her readmission to the hospital 
for delivery – In the event that the minor and her parents desire to 
give the child in adoption after the delivery, the State Government 
to take all necessary steps. [Paras 19, 32, 33, 35, 36]
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 – ss. 3(1), 3(2-
B) – Role of the registered medical practitioners-RMP and 
medical board under the MTP Act:
Held: The Act protects the registered medical practitioners-RMP 
and the medical boards when they form an opinion in good faith 
as to the termination of pregnancy – Fear of prosecution among 
registered medical practitioners is a barrier for pregnant persons to 
access safe and legal abortions – Opinion of the RMP is decisive in 
matters of termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act – Purpose 
of the opinion of the RMP borrows from the legislative intent of the 
MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant person and 
facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion – It is therefore imperative 
that the fundamental right of a pregnant person is not compromised 
for reasons other than to protect the physical and mental health 
of the pregnant person – Medical board, in forming its opinion on 
the termination of pregnancies must not restrict itself to the criteria 
u/s. 3(2-B) but must also evaluate the physical and emotional well 
being of the pregnant person – When issuing a clarificatory opinion 
the medical board must provide sound and cogent reasons for any 
change in opinion and circumstances. [Paras 37, 29]
Constitution of India – Art. 21 – Right to reproductive autonomy 
– Right to abortion – Fundamental right:
Held: Right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy 
and reproductive choice – This right is guaranteed u/Art. 21 – 
Decision to terminate pregnancy is deeply personal for any person 
– Choice ex

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.