Recently, the Delhi High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of unlawfully terminating her pregnancy, holding that forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy strikes at the core of her bodily autonomy and decisional freedom under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court rejected the criminalisation of a medically lawful abortion, observing that “forcing her to do so represents the violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma.”
Brief Facts:
The case arose from matrimonial discord, during which the petitioner underwent a medical termination of pregnancy at a registered hospital while being around 14 weeks pregnant. Subsequently, a criminal complaint was lodged alleging that the abortion had been carried out without spousal consent, resulting in her being summoned for an offence under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. While the trial court issued a summons, the revisional court confined the proceedings solely to the alleged offence under Section 312 IPC. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, asserting that the termination was lawful, medically supervised, and protected under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as well as her constitutional rights.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner argued that the essential ingredients of Section 312 of the IPC were wholly absent, as the pregnancy was terminated within the statutory limit of 20 weeks and strictly in accordance with the MTP Act. The Counsel contended that the abortion was undertaken in good faith due to marital discord and mental distress, squarely falling within the statutory and constitutional framework protecting reproductive choice. Reliance was placed on landmark precedents, including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, to submit that reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and decisional liberty are inseparable facets of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioner further submitted that a criminal prosecution amounts to an abuse of process and a direct assault on the Petitioner’s dignity and privacy.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent, on the other hand, opposed the petition, contending that the termination was carried out without the husband’s consent and at a time when marital discord had not formally manifested. The Counsel argued that the Sessions Court had rightly sustained the summoning order under Section 312 of the IPC and that the legality of the abortion could not be conclusively determined at the threshold stage. According to the Respondents, the matter required trial and evidence rather than quashing at the pre-trial stage.
Observation of the Court:
The Court held that a woman’s choice to terminate a pregnancy is an integral facet of her personal liberty, dignity, and bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and observed that this reproductive autonomy is firmly protected within the constitutional and statutory framework governing individual rights. It held that pregnancy is not merely a biological condition but one that has profound physical, psychological, social, and economic consequences for a woman, consequences that the law cannot ignore.
Emphasising that mental health must be understood in a broad and realistic sense, the Court observed that it cannot be confined to clinical illness alone but must account for the woman’s lived realities, noting that “mental health issues may have their genesis in psychological and difficult situations a woman may find herself in, during a given phase of life.”
The Court observed that “if a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, then forcing her to do so represents the violation of the woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health.” The Bench acknowledged the harsh social realities surrounding women facing marital discord, observing that such situations often leave women to bear the burden of pregnancy and child-rearing alone, remarking that “it is only a woman who suffers. Such pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties, leading to grave mental trauma.”
The Court clarified that international human rights jurisprudence recognises rights at birth and not conception, while holding that “the unborn foetus cannot be put on a higher pedestal than the right of a living woman.” The Court concluded that choices relating to pregnancy, fertility, and motherhood fall squarely within a woman’s private domain, reiterating that the right to control one’s body and to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy must rest with the woman alone, particularly when the procedure is undertaken lawfully under the statutory framework.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate, and quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 312 of the IPC, holding that a medically supervised abortion carried out in compliance with the MTP Act cannot attract criminal liability.
Case Title: Sanya Bhasin v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 7984/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Atul Jain
Advocate for the Respondent: APP Shoaib Haider, Adv. Shefali Menezes
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
