CITATION	( 2024)5 S.C.R. 470
YEAR OF JUDGEMENT	2024
STATUES REFFERED IN THIS CASE	MedicalTermination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
PLAINTIFF	A( Mother of X)
DEFENDANT	State of Maharastra ANR
BENCH	Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI

INTRODUCTION

A ( mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra case 2024 is a landmark judgment which primarily deals with pivotal issues related to securing the rights and autonomy of women. A minor girl X who became pregnant as a result of sexual assault. Her mother took the help of legal authorities to terminate the gestation of her child. This case under medical termination of pregnancy act 1971 provides guidelines for the termination of gestation.

This case arose in Bombay on 4th April 2024. The court denied the termination of pregnancy

of complainant’s minor daughter who was only fourteen years old. The minor was 25 weeks pregnant when she revealed the incident on 20 March 2024 and the case was filed in Bombay high court. By the time the case reached supreme court she was 33 weeks pregnant. This was due to the procedures involved in medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) act of 1971.

FACTS OF THE CASE

In A ( mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra, ‘A’ was the mother of ‘X’. A demanded justice for her daughter X who was put through sexual assault and files a felonious complaint against the prepeter.

An FIR was filled In Turbhe MIDC police station, Navi Mumbai under section 376 IPC and POCSO Act (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012). X was taken to sanitarium for medical scan and also transferred to JJ group of hospital, Mumbai for termination of gestation.

The mother of ‘ X’ went to Bombay high court for seeking authorization for termination of

gestation of her daughter. The Bombay high court declined the plea for the termination of gestation under medical termination of pregnancy act 1971 as the gestation exceeded 24 weeks reckoned on the report of medical board constituted at the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology of the Grant Government Medical College & Sir J J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai.

With a special leave petition the complainant moved to supreme court. And a new medical board was constituted at Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital and Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College, Sion, Mumbai.

A report submitted by Sion hospital where the minor was examined by a unit of six doctors along with the dean:

1. Dr Rajesh Dere, Prof. & Head Dept. of Forensic Medicine;

2. Dr Anagha Joshi, Prof. & Head Dept. of Radiology;
3. Dr Amarjitsingh Bawa, fresh Prof. Of Dept. of Gynecology & acting Head of Department;

4. Dr Nilesh Shah, Prof. & Head Dept. of Psychiatry; and

5. Dr Swati Manerkar, Prof. & Head Dept. of Neonatology;

The medical board examined the minor and concluded that continuing pregnancy against the will of the minor would negatively impact the physical and internal health of the minor.

Termination at the current crucial stage was doable and didn’t pose a advanced threat to minor’s life than continuing the gestation to the full term.

But the parents of the minor were confused and kept on changing their opinions regarding the termination and carrying the pregnancy to the term.

Ultimately the parents decided to terminate the pregnancy. Still, if the child is born alive they would give the child for relinquishment.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the state of Maharastra unable to protect the rights of the child?
2. Right to terminate gestation exceeded beyond

the statutory limit of 20 weeks.

3. Concurrence of the minor- The case addressed the questioned that whether the minor has the right to make opinions regarding her body and terminate her pregnancy and whether her concurrence should be considered important.
4. This case also addressed the part of maternal concurrence.
5. Health and safety of the minor- The court estimated that will the gestation cause physical and cerebral impacts on the minor.
6. How to balance the rule of law on humanitarian grounds and role of judiciary in medical cases?
7. An ethical decision should be made in sexual assault cases including minors.
8. What about the indigenous rights of the minor?
9. Can reproductive autonomy be applied in this

case?

10. Compensation for the physical and cerebral detriment caused to X.

ARGUMENT OF PLAINTIFF

They argued that the gestation was a result of sexual assault which affected the 14 year old minor’s internal and physical health and caused trauma. Latterly the pregnancy should be allowed to be terminated.

They also stated that denying termination of gestation was a violation of the fundamental rights of the minor under article 21 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty.

Forcing ‘X’ to continue pregnancy would negatively impact the internal and physical health of the minor.

Delay in judicial proceedings might worsen the minor’s condition.

Demand for financial compensation to the mother of the minor.

ARGUMENT OF DEFENDEND

The Bombay high court stated that MTP Act

doesn’t allow termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.

It stated to save the minor, as well as the fetus. However a new medical board was constituted by the supreme court which allowed the minor to terminate her pregnancy. In case the pregnancy wasn’t terminated it would lead to utmost trauma to the minors internal health.

PRINCIPAL APPLIED

Equality in reproductive rights- The court allowed the right to abort to unmarried women considering their health.

Interpretation of Medical termination of pregnancy act under Section 3(2- B) and Section 5 allowing to terminate gestation in case of sexual assault.

IPC Section 376 which provides punishment for rape.

Statutory interpretation of right to life and personal liberty under article 21 of the Indian constitution the supreme court gives a person right to take decision regarding their own body. It also focuses on privacy and dignity of the minor, which must be defended in cases of

medical treatment involving sexual assault. 

POCSO Act Section 4, 8 and 12 which protects children from sexual assault.

JUDGEMENT

The Bombay high court which earlier disallowed the call to terminate pregnancy saying that the pregnancy has reached beyond 24 weeks limit of Medical termination of pregnancy act.

The supreme court gave decision to terminate gestation depending upon the concurrence of the pregnant person.

The medical boards should prioritize the health of the pregnant person to minimize pitfalls.

As per Section 3( 2- B) and 5 of MTV act the gestation can be terminated indeed after 24 weeks in case of minors and sexual assault victims.

It also gave financial compensation to the minor and her family.

Also the supreme court concentrated on using the term ‘pregnant person’ rather of ‘pregnant women’ admitting that individualities of different gender groups including non-binary people and

ambisexual men can witness pregnancy.

The Sion hospital shall bear all the charges in regard to the hospitalization of the minor.

The MTP act protects the RMP and the medical boards when they form an opinion in good faith as to the termination of gestation.

ANALYSIS

The case A( mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra dealt with issues relating to the protection of the rights of minors, the concurrence for termination of gestation, laws regarding sexual assault and to save minors from sexual abuse.

The complainant approached the Bombay high court for the case of sexual assault of her minor daughter of fourteen years of age.

She argued that the court has not evaluated the substantiation duly especially the will of the minor. The medical reports suggested signs of pregnancy due to sexual assault.

The court stressed on the significance of the will of

the victim and medical reports in similar cases. This case revolves around whether to terminate

the gestation or not.

The case is girdled by reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity and the interpretation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy( MTP) Act, 1971.

In agreement to the judgment of the case the minor complainant was subordinated to sexual assault. The supreme court ordered to terminate gestation of the minor under section 3( 2- B) and section 5 of medical termination of pregnancy act 1971 indeed after 20- 24 weeks of gestation. In cases involving minor while the concurrence of guardians is important the concurrence of minor is valued equally. In case of difference of opinion the court must prioritize minor’s perspective as a pivotal factor.

This decision underlines that the constitution

guarantees reproductive freedom as part of particular Iiberty.

The following case supports the courts

decision:

• X vs State( NCT of Delhi) 2023
• XYZvs State of Gujarat 2023
• Suchita Shrivastava vs chandigarh administration 2009

CONCLUSION

A( mother of X) vs state of Maharashtra case raised several pivotal questions regarding autonomy of individualities particularly minors. The state should be responsible for making right opinions in cases involving minors and guarding these vulnerable groups from sexual assault.

The state should concentrate on laws relating to victims of sexual assault.

And what decision the court should make in case involving a conflict between maternal rights and state interest in guarding the child. As in this case the central issue is whether a mother can make opinions regarding termination of pregnancy of her child who was subordinated to sexual assault.

The mother wanted to terminate the gestation of

the 14 time old minor as she believed it would deteriorate the physical and internal well- being of her child.

Still, the state of Maharastra wanted to protect the minor from dangerous consequences of revocation of pregnancy.

The supreme courts judgment favoured the mother’s decision to terminate the pregnancy by

careful analysis of laws relating to reproductive rights of the pregnant person and the rights of parents to make opinions regarding the welfare of their children.

The court stated that under certain

circumstances the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act can permit revocation upto 20 weeks of pregnancy subordinated to the opinion of the medical board.

In this case the expert opinion played an

important part in the courts decision to allow revocation regardless of the age of the child. The court considered the significance of considering the opinion of the medical professionals in determining the interest of child’s health and well- being.

The court also underscored the significance of emotional and cerebral impacts of forced gestation on young girl who was a victim of sexual assault.

The court stated that the trauma caused to the

minor can result in implicit detriment to her internal and physical health and affect in dangerous outgrowth if the pregnancy continues.

This judgment stressed the state’s duty to cover the welfare of children and securing the interest of the child.

However the court noted that it should take decision precisely in similar sensitive cases.

In this case the Bombay high court decision to continue the gestation was a unjust and so the supreme court reaffirmed the decision by allowing the minor to terminate the pregnancy. The ruling focuses on broader implications of legal framework in India with broader clarity of Medical termination of pregnancy act particularly when dealing with minors and sexual assault cases. Also it pays special attention to child protection and welfare.

It supports minor in delicate situations involving unwanted pregnancy and provides care and support during similar delicate times.

It also gives adequate medical support to minors managing sexual offence.

To conclude, the court made a right decision by denying the decision of Bombay high court in A (mother of X) vs State of Maharashtra case which was a landmark judgment that emphasize the countries duty to safeguard the

rights of the children and significance of reproductive autonomy.

This judgment serves as progressive way towards justice and equivalency specifically to vulnerable groups, in particular children.

This case set a precedent for later cases so that the rights and autonomy of pregnant person especially minors who are survivors of sexual assault should be prioritized.

The medical frameworks should give support in such sensitive matters and prioritize the basic rights of the people.

REFERENCES

https// lawfoyer.in/a-mother-of-x-vs-state-of­ maharashtra-anr/

https// www.advocatekhoj.com/library/

judgments/announcement.php?WID=17568   https//indiankanoon.org/doc/61453336/

The article is written by Shiwangi soumya student at Sister Nivedita University; Intern at Legal Vidhya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.