Case Name: S v Union of India
Petition Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ SLP(C) NO. 14454/2026)
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 446
Date of Judgement: 24.04.26
Coram: Honourable Justice B.V. Nagarathna & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
INTRODUCTION
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed whether a minor girl can be compelled to continue with an unwanted pregnancy merely because the child could be given up for adoption after birth. The Court held that the choice of the pregnant woman must remain paramount, and forcing continuation of an unwanted pregnancy violates her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment clarifies that constitutional relief is available even when statutory remedies under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) are unavailable due to gestational age.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The appellant, who is a mother of a 15‑year‑old minor daughter, discovered in April 2026 that her daughter was about 27 weeks pregnant from a consensual relationship with a 17‑year‑old friend. The pregnancy was unwanted, and the minor attempted suicide twice upon learning of it. Several doctors refused her due to her advanced stage of pregnancy, forcing her to seek an abortion from the Delhi High Court through the MTP Act.
The High Court, relying on a medical board report, denied permission, stating that termination could pose risks and that the minor did not suffer from any major psychiatric disorder. The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship between two minors and was unwanted. The minor had also attempted suicide due to distress. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether a minor girl carrying an unwanted pregnancy can be compelled to continue the pregnancy on the grounds that the child could be given up for adoption after birth.
- Whether the absence of a statutory remedy under the MTP Act (due to gestational age exceeding permissible limits) bars constitutional relief under Articles 21, 32, or 226.
- Whether reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity under Article 21 include the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy even beyond the statutory period.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Appellant (Mother of the minor): The pregnancy is unwanted, and the same happened as part of a consensual relationship between the minors. The minor is already mentally traumatised after two suicide attempts. Obliging the minor to continue the pregnancy would violate her right to life and reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The High Court has overlooked the Government Guidelines of 2017 that allow the abortion of late-term pregnancies where there are exceptional circumstances for minors. The minor would be ready to face the risk of termination of pregnancy.
Respondents (Union of India & State): The pregnancy is at an advanced stage (27 weeks), the pregnancy is normal, and the minor must be permitted to give birth. The minor’s child may be provided for by the state once born. Should the minor not wish to care for the child, CARA may arrange adoption while ensuring family privacy. The Medical Board Report makes no findings about any threat to the physical or mental health of the minor; hence, the minor cannot abort.
JUDICIAL REASONING
The Court held that the availability of adoption cannot be used as a reason to compel childbirth. The Court remarked in Para 15 – “What is relevant is the choice of the pregnant woman rather than that of the child to be born. It is easy to say that if the pregnant woman is not interested in raising the child, she may give the child up for adoption, and therefore, she must give birth to the child. That cannot be a consideration, particularly in cases where the child to be born is unwanted.” Directing childbirth against the woman’s will subordinates her welfare to that of the unborn child, which is constitutionally impermissible.
Relying on X v. Health & Family Welfare Department (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321), the Court reaffirmed that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy includes the right to choose whether and when to have children, access safe abortion, and make decisions about her body. The court directed not to compel any woman, specifically a minor child, to continue pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decisional autonomy but could also inflict grave mental, emotional and physical trauma.
Further, the Court rejected the argument that the absence of a remedy under the MTP Act bars constitutional relief. It held that a lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy. The statute codifies a part of the constitutional remedy. If a case is not covered within the four corners of a statute, can constitutional relief also be denied? Constitutional Courts must weigh the facts through the lens of the pregnant woman seeking termination and willing to undertake medical risks, rather than compelling her to complete the pregnancy.
Additionally, the Court dismantled two common assumptions, one of which is making termination rights contingent upon fetal pathology subordinates the woman’s fundamental rights to a condition beyond her control. The court highlighted that the Rights are not functions of circumstance; they attach to humans because they are free moral agents. The other assumption emphasises that the delay in seeking termination does not extinguish reproductive choice. Late presentation may result from irregular menstrual cycles, lack of awareness, financial constraints, abuse, or lack of familial support.
According to the High Court, the Medical Board found no major psychiatric disorder, but the minor had attempted suicide twice. The Court observed that the absence of a clinically diagnosed mental disorder does not negate the presence of severe distress, trauma, or emotional turmoil. Forcing continuation of pregnancy in such circumstances is a direct affront to the right to live with dignity. The Court warned that if Constitutional Courts routinely deny permission for late‑term termination, women would resort to illegal abortion centres, exposing themselves to greater danger. This would reinforce the very conditions (unsafe abortions) that the MTP Act seeks
CONCLUSION
In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court’s order dated 21 April 2026. The directions in the order were that the appellant’s minor daughter shall be allowed to get her pregnancy medically terminated at AIIMS, New Delhi. The mother has been asked to give her undertaking to allow the minor to undergo the said procedure. All necessary medical measures will be taken, and the process should be completed at the earliest.
The Court held that a woman, especially a minor, cannot be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy merely because the child could be given up for adoption afterwards. Reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right under Article 21, and constitutional relief is available even when the statutory period under the MTP Act has expired. Foetal normalcy and delay in seeking termination do not extinguish the pregnant woman’s decisional autonomy. Constitutional Courts must prioritise the welfare of the pregnant woman over that of the unborn child in cases of unwanted pregnancy.
