Supreme Court sided with a 14-year-old sexual assault survivor and her family, upholding their right to continue her pregnancy after initially granting permission for termination. The case clarifies critical aspects of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, emphasizing a pregnant person's consent, a medical board's responsibility, and the court's role in safeguarding reproductive rights.

This case involved a 14-year-old, ‘X,’ pregnant as a result of an alleged sexual assault. Initially seeking to terminate the pregnancy, 'X' and her mother, the Appellant, faced roadblocks due to the pregnancy exceeding the MTP Act’s 24-week limit. The case went before the Bombay High Court, which denied permission for termination.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Appellant secured an order for a fresh medical evaluation at Sion Hospital, Mumbai. While this evaluation, conducted at 29.6 weeks of gestation, supported the termination due to potential negative impacts on ‘X's well-being, the situation took an unexpected turn. ‘X’s' parents, after initially consenting to the termination, expressed their desire to continue the pregnancy and consider adoption, citing concerns over the risks involved in late-term procedures. This led to the Supreme Court's involvement in reassessing the situation.

The Supreme Court’s Judgment Recognizing the paramount importance of ‘X’s’ safety and well-being, the Supreme Court ultimately recalled its previous order permitting termination. The judgment emphasized the family's evolving stance and the potential risks associated with late-term termination.

This landmark judgment significantly clarifies the MTP Act and its application:

Primacy of Consent: The judgment unequivocally asserts the pregnant person's consent as paramount in abortion cases. Citing the Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. case, it reinforces that reproductive choices are fundamentally personal and no entity, including the State, can override a pregnant person's decision.

Medical Board’s Role: The judgment stresses that medical boards, when assessing termination requests, should not solely focus on the criteria listed in Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act. Instead, they must comprehensively evaluate the pregnant person’s physical and mental well-being, providing clear and reasoned explanations for any change in their opinion.

Court’s Responsibility: The judgment clarifies that while courts rely on medical boards’ expert opinions, they ultimately bear the responsibility to safeguard the pregnant person’s constitutional rights, including the right to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy.

The Supreme Court's judgment in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. sets a significant precedent in the Indian legal framework. It underscores a pregnant person’s agency in making reproductive choices, clarifies the MTP Act's interpretation, and reasserts the judiciary's role in protecting these fundamental rights.

Coram:Chief Justice of India Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra. Dated: 29-04-2024