Case Title
A (Mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4774 of 2026)
Bench
Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Background of the Case
The appellant was the mother of a girl who was a minor at the time of conception. The girl had allegedly entered into a physical relationship with her friend and later became pregnant.
In January 2026 after suffering abdominal pain and missing menstruation for several months medical examination revealed that she was around 23 weeks pregnant. Later the Medical Board found that she had reached 28 weeks of pregnancy.
An FIR was also registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 64(2)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The mother approached the Bombay High Court seek urgent permission for termination of pregnancy arguing that continuation of pregnancy would cause severe physical, mental and social trauma to her daughter and would affect her future prospects.
Bombay High Court Refused Termination
The High Court refused permission for abortion and held that:
the girl had by then attained majority,
the pregnancy had crossed the statutory period under the MTP Act,
the child could be given for adoption after birth,
termination at this stage would amount to foeticide.
The High Court relied upon X vs Union of India (2023) and prioritized the survival of the viable foetus.
What the Supreme Court Said
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to properly consider the girls reproductive autonomy and mental trauma.
The Court clearly stated:
“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 emphasized that the fact that the girl had crossed 18 years by the time of hearing was irrelevant because she was a minor when she conceived.
The Court further held that whether the pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship or sexual assault was not the main issue. What mattered was:
the pregnancy was unwanted,
the girl did not want to give birth,
forcing continuation would cause serious mental and physical trauma.
Reproductive Autonomy Must Prevail
Relying on earlier judgments including X vs Health & Family Welfare Department (2022) the Court reaffirmed that reproductive rights include:
right to access safe and legal abortion,
bodily autonomy,
decisional autonomy,
freedom from forced continuation of pregnancy.
The Court said that the right of the pregnant woman must prevail over concern regarding the unborn fetus when the pregnancy is unwanted.
Justice Nagarathna also reiterated that a foetus is dependent on the mother and cannot be treated as having a completely separate identity overriding the woman’s constitutional rights under Article 21.
Final Order
The Supreme Court:
allowed the appeal,
set aside the Bombay High Court order dated 27.01.2026,
permitted medical termination of pregnancy,
directed J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai to immediately conduct the procedure with all medical safeguards.
The mother was also directed to provide written consent for the procedure.
Conclusion
This decision reinforces the constitutionally guaranteed right to bodily autonomy as well as to reproductive freedom for women.
Further, the Supreme Court has also determined that an individual cannot be forced to become a parent through coercive judicial decree; in addition, only the pregnant woman has the prerogative as to whether she wishes to or will continue her pregnancy—not the government or any other entity such as a voluntary association or the judiciary.
