Pregnancy termination refused where medical opinion deems termination riskier to maternal health than continuation.

The petitioner, the mother of minor 'N', sought directions for the medical termination of N's pregnancy, which was over 27 weeks old

The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship between minor N and a 17-year-old minor boy

On 15.04.2026, the Court directed a Medical Board at AIIMS to assess the physical and psychological impact of the pregnancy

The Medical Board’s report, dated 18.04.2026, advised against termination, stating that at 27 weeks and 1 day, the procedure posed significant risks to the mother’s future reproductive health, including risks associated with cesarean or instrumental delivery

The Board further noted that the fetus was viable and would be born alive, requiring intensive neonatal care and facing potential long-term morbidities

Psychological evaluation of N revealed emotional distress but no major psychiatric disorder

1. Whether the medical termination of a pregnancy exceeding 27 weeks can be permitted when the Medical Board concludes that continuation is safer for the mother than termination

2. Whether the viability of the fetus and the potential for a live birth at the current gestational age preclude the granting of a termination request

The Court primarily relied on the legal principle that the opinion of a specialized Medical Board regarding the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman is the decisive factor in MTP proceedings

It applied the precedent set by the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra (2024 INSC 371), which mandates that courts must evaluate the Board's opinion on the effects of both continuation and termination of the pregnancy

The Court distinguished the present case from other precedents where termination was allowed because, in those instances, the Medical Board had confirmed that termination would not entail major danger to the mother

The Court’s reasoning was centered on the "best interest" of the minor mother as determined by medical experts.

The Court observed that the Medical Board found termination to be "detrimental" to the health of both the mother and the baby, carrying significant risks of surgical intervention that could adversely affect the minor's future reproductive health

The Court placed heavy weight on the Board’s finding that the continuation of the pregnancy was "less likely to have any adverse effects" than its termination

Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of fetal viability, noting that since the baby would be born alive and require active resuscitation and neonatal ICU care, termination was not advisable given the potential for lifetime morbidities

Because the psychiatric assessment revealed no major disorder, the Court concluded that the medical risks of termination outweighed the grounds for the petition

It held that in view of the Medical Board's categorical opinion that termination would pose a significant risk to the minor mother’s future health and that the fetus was viable, the prayer could not be acceded to