Reproductive autonomy permits medical termination of pregnancy beyond thirty-two weeks for fetal neurological abnormalities.

The Petitioner, a 36-year-old married woman with a healthy 10-year-old child, sought a writ of mandamus to medically terminate her pregnancy which had exceeded 32 weeks

Diagnostic scans conducted on 06.05.2026 and 07.05.2026 revealed significant structural fetal brain abnormalities, specifically partial agenesis of the corpus callosum and bilateral ventriculomegaly (enlargement of fluid-filled ventricles)

Medical experts advised that the condition provided a "poor neurological prognosis," including risks of motor dysfunction, spasticity, and severe intellectual disability

The court-ordered Medical Board confirmed these findings, noting that while the condition was not "invariably incompatible with life," there was a significant risk of profound developmental disability

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and the right to make decisional choices regarding pregnancy

The precedent of S v. The Union of India & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 14454/2026), which established that the passage of time does not extinguish a woman's right to reproductive choices and that Constitutional Courts should not take a prohibitory approach solely based on statutory periods or fetal normalcy

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, interpreting it through the lens of constitutional imperatives rather than mechanical statutory adherence

The Court reasoned that reproductive choice is a fundamental right that includes the "right not to procreate"

It rejected a technical approach to the 32-week gestation period because the abnormalities were only detectable via later scans; the Petitioner had been diligent, as an earlier scan on 04.04.2026 showed no anomalies

While the Medical Board noted the fetus might survive birth, the Court emphasized that "survival alone" is not the sole metric; the quality of life, neurological prognosis, and the emotional/financial burden on the parents must be considered

The Court concluded that compelling a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will after such a diagnosis constitutes a substantial intrusion into her bodily autonomy

It further noted that the Petitioner was prepared to bear all medical costs and that the selected facility, Anupama Hospital, was a registered medical establishment

The Court held that the Petitioner’s right to bodily integrity and dignity necessitated the exercise of the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction and directed Anupama Hospital to perform the procedure at the earliest, adhering to strict medical protocols and confidentiality

It further ordered that if the fetus is delivered alive, the medical team must provide all necessary care as per legal and ethical standards, and the Registry was directed to redact the Petitioner's identity to safeguard her privacy