Compelling Woman To Continue an Unwanted Pregnancy Is Direct Violation of Her Bodily Autonomy and Integrity, Says Delhi High Court; Quashes Case Against Woman Who Got Abortion

New Delhi, January 10: In a landmark judgment reinforcing reproductive rights, the Delhi High Court has ruled that compelling a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy is a direct violation of her bodily autonomy and integrity. Presiding over the case of Sanya Bhasin v The State & Anr, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed criminal proceedings against a woman who had been accused of "causing miscarriage" by her estranged husband. The court emphasised that decisions regarding fertility, motherhood, and control over one's body must rest solely with the woman.

Reproductive Rights as Fundamental Liberty

Delivering the verdict on January 6, 2026, the Court observed that reproductive autonomy is an intrinsic part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Krishna noted that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will not only violates her physical integrity but also inflicts grave mental trauma. HC on Sexual Assault: Minor Variations in Child’s Words Cannot Dilute Allegation of Sexual Assault, Says Delhi High Court.

The Court held that the legal framework, specifically the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, is designed to protect a woman's physical and mental health. It reaffirmed that no provision in Indian law requires a woman to obtain her husband's consent for an abortion.

Quashing Misuse of Criminal Law

The case originated from a criminal complaint filed by the petitioner’s estranged husband, who alleged she had terminated her 14-week pregnancy without his permission. A Metropolitan Magistrate had previously summoned the woman under Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), an order that was later upheld by a sessions court.

However, the High Court set aside these orders, ruling that a lawful abortion performed by a registered medical practitioner within statutory limits cannot be criminalized. The bench noted that using Section 312 of the IPC in such instances amounts to an abuse of the legal process in the context of matrimonial discord.

Addressing the Realities of Marital Discord

Justice Krishna offered a poignant critique of the social challenges women face, citing the "harsh reality of this misogynistic world." The Court observed that mental trauma from marital conflict is often compounded during pregnancy, where women are frequently left to shoulder the responsibilities of child-rearing single-handedly without emotional or financial support.

The Court specifically rejected the husband’s argument that there was "no discord" simply because the couple was living together at the time of the procedure. It clarified that marital stress exists far before it manifests in formal litigation, and the woman’s decision to separate - already recorded in her medical files - was sufficient grounds to recognize the impact on her mental health. Delhi High Court Grants Wife Legal Guardianship of Husband After Massive Brain Haemorrhage Leaves Him in Vegetative State.

Rights of the Living vs the Unborn

In a significant legal clarification, the High Court rejected arguments that placed the rights of a foetus above those of the mother. The bench noted that international human rights standards generally recognise rights at birth rather than at conception.

"The unborn foetus cannot be put on a higher pedestal than the right of a living woman," the Court asserted, concluding that the preservation of the woman's health and autonomy must take precedence in the eyes of the law.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jan 10, 2026 04:00 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).