Summary
The Court recalled its earlier permission to terminate a minor sexual-assault survivor’s advanced pregnancy after informed discussions led her and her parents to choose continuation. Reproductive autonomy includes that choice. Medical boards advising constitutional courts must assess physical and mental health, not merely gestational limits or fetal abnormalities, and explain changed opinions cogently. The hospital must bear specified care expenses; adoption assistance depends on the family’s later wishes and applicable law.
Issues
- Whether earlier termination permission should continue despite the minor’s and parents’ informed changed decision.
- What assessment and reasons medical boards must provide to constitutional courts.
- How the pregnant person’s autonomy and a minor’s guardian-consent requirement interact.
Provisions considered
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaDignity, privacy, bodily integrity and reproductive choice protect the decision to terminate or continue pregnancy, including after judicial permission for termination. (¶¶ 21, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35)
- Sections 3(1), 3(2-B), 3(2-C), 3(2-D) and 5, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971The judgment explained statutory exceptions and good-faith medical opinion, requiring boards assisting courts to assess maternal health beyond merely recording that fetal-abnormality criteria are unmet. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 37(i), 37(ii))
- Sections 3(3) and 3(4)(a), Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971The pregnant person’s perspective informs assessment of circumstances; guardian consent applies to minors, but their own differing view remains an important judicial consideration. (¶¶ 30, 33, 35, 37(iv))
Held
- After discussion of the advanced-stage procedure’s risks, the parents chose continuation and the Court was informed that the minor agreed. Her safety and welfare governed the case-specific decision to recall the order of 22 April 2024 authorising termination. Permission did not oblige her to undergo the procedure. (¶¶ 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 32, 34, 35)
- A board reporting to a constitutional court must examine the pregnant person and furnish full assessment of physical and mental health, including the impact of continuation. It cannot confine its opinion to gestational age and absence of substantial fetal abnormalities. The court then independently applies its judicial mind to that medical material. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 37(ii))
- Good-faith medical opinions under the statutory scheme are protected; apprehension of prosecution should not prevent lawful assessment. A clarificatory opinion changing an earlier recommendation requires sound, cogent reasons and an explanation of changed circumstances, given the trauma and time-sensitive consequences. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 37(i), 37(iii))
- Consent and reproductive autonomy are paramount. Guardian consent is statutorily prescribed for a minor, but if the minor’s or mentally ill pregnant person’s opinion diverges from the guardian’s, that personal view is an important consideration for a just judicial decision. Here the minor’s and parents’ wishes coincided. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35, 37(iv))
- The discussion questioning the classification in Section 3(2-B) left constitutional examination to an appropriate future proceeding; this judgment did not strike down that provision or create an unrestricted statutory right to termination at every gestational age. (¶ 28)
- Sion Hospital must bear the specified hospitalization and delivery-readmission expenses. If the minor and parents later wish to pursue adoption, the State must facilitate it under applicable law; neither adoption nor that choice was compelled. (¶¶ 36, 38)
Result
Earlier termination-authorisation order recalled; appeal disposed of with hospital-expense and conditional lawful-adoption-assistance directions. No costs.