The Bombay High Court on Tuesday permitted a 16-year-old rape survivor to medically terminate her 31-week pregnancy, recognising her right to make decisions concerning her reproductive future and personal autonomy. A division bench comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande relied on medical assessments indicating that the termination would not pose any physical or psychological risk to the minor, and allowed the procedure subject to her mother’s written consent and adherence to all necessary medical safeguards.
Although the pregnancy had crossed the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the court noted that the case involved an unmarried minor who was unwilling to continue with the pregnancy. The bench emphasised that the teenager had clearly expressed her intention not to carry the pregnancy to term and had asserted her autonomy and right to decide against childbirth at the completion of the gestational period. Taking these circumstances into account, the court concluded that permitting termination was justified in order to protect her mental and physical well-being.
During the ruling, the High Court referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment in which a minor in Mumbai had been allowed to terminate a 30-week pregnancy. In that case, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that no court can compel a woman — particularly a minor — to continue with an unwanted pregnancy, underscoring the importance of reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity. The Bombay High Court cited this precedent while reinforcing the principle that personal choice must remain central in such sensitive cases.
Earlier, the medical board at Thane Civil Hospital had refrained from either recommending or opposing termination because pregnancies beyond 24 weeks require judicial approval. The board clarified in a fresh submission dated February 17 that its role was limited to presenting medical facts before the court, leaving the final decision to judicial determination. In its most recent evaluation, the board stated that immediate termination would not endanger the minor’s health or cause physical or psychological harm, a finding that played a key role in the court’s decision.
Advocate Saloni Ghule, appearing for the petitioner, informed the bench that the minor had initially misunderstood the medical process, believing that the termination could be completed quickly in a single day. Doctors later explained that due to the advanced stage of pregnancy, the termination would require a procedure similar to normal delivery. The counsel also submitted that the girl had not received sufficient counselling or explanation earlier, which prevented her from making a fully informed decision at the time.
While granting permission for the termination, the High Court declined a request to transfer the minor to a hospital in Ulhasnagar. Instead, it directed that the procedure be conducted at Thane Civil Hospital under the supervision of the existing medical board, including the two gynaecologists who had previously examined her. The court further instructed that the same doctors should preferably participate in or oversee the procedure to ensure continuity of medical care and proper monitoring throughout the process.
