Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Vipin Bihari Sahani vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2026
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.827 OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4774 of 2026)
A (MOTHER OF X) …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by
the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L)
No.2388 of 2026 by which the appellant’s request for medical
termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter “X” (presently
she is stated to have crossed 18 years of age) was declined and
instead certain directions were issued for continuation of the
pregnancy and to give birth to a child, the appellant is before this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
BORRA LM VALLI
Date: 2026.02.13
17:47:47 IST
Reason:
Court.
1
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant
herein is the mother of the daughter who at the relevant time was
stated to be a minor. The daughter of the appellant herein is
alleged to have indulged in physical relations with a friend and as
a result conceived. In January 2026, the daughter informed the
appellant of abdominal pain and not having menstruated for a
few months. Upon being medically examined, it was revealed that
she was about 23 weeks’ pregnant.
4. An FIR bearing No.3/2026 came to be lodged by the
appellant against the friend of the minor daughter under Sections
4 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 (“POCSO Act”, for short) and Section 64(2)(i) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”, for short) at the Srinagar
Police Station, District Thane Sehar, Maharashtra.
5. The appellant herein preferred Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of
2026 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay seeking
urgent medical termination of pregnancy of her minor daughter,
on the grounds of the negative impact such pregnancy would
have on the minor daughter’s physical and mental health, as well
2
as on her societal standing and future prospects.
6. By interim order dated 23.01.2026, the High Court directed
the minor daughter of the appellant herein to undergo
examination by the Medical Board of Sir J.J. Hospital at 3:00 PM
and sought opinion on questions relating to the stage of
pregnancy, whether termination could take place and if yes, by
what method and whether any health risk would be faced by the
minor daughter if such termination was effectuated.
7. The Medical Board in its Report stated that the minor
daughter of the appellant was in her 28 th week of pregnancy, that
the foetus did not possess any congenital anomalies, that
termination was possible but that Sir J. J. Hospital did not
possess the expertise to carry out the specific procedure required
and that termination at this stage may result in the premature
birth of the foetus.
8. By the impugned order dated 27.01.2026, the High Court
refused to grant permission for the medical termination of
pregnancy on the grounds that the minor daughter had attained
majority as on the date of the order, that the child to be born
3
could be given up for adoption and that termination in these facts
and circumstances would amount to foeticide. The High Court
heavily relied on the judgement of a three-Judge Bench of this
Court in the case of X vs. Union of India, 2023 INSC 919,
wherein permission was not granted for medical termination of
pregnancy when the foetus was determined to be viable.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the first respondent-State. We have perused the
material on record as well as the impugned order.
10. The issue which arises for our consideration in this case is
with regard to the disinclination of the appellant’s daughter
herein to continue with the pregnancy and to give birth to a child.
The appellant’s daughter is presently pregnant for thirty weeks.
The request was made by the appellant for seeking medical
termination of her daughter’s pregnancy since the said pregnancy
was owing to a relationship that her daughter had with her
friend. It is stated that the continuation of the pregnancy
resulting in delivery would be traumatic both mentally as well as
physically to the daughter and adversely affect her future
4
prospects. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant
approached the High Court.
11. The High Court was of the view that since the appellant’s
daughter had already crossed twenty seven weeks which was also
beyond the period stipulated under the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971, permitting the appellant’s daughter to
terminate the pregnancy at that stage would not be in the interest
of the foetus to be given birth to as a baby. In this regard, there
was a Medical Board constituted and the Report of the Medical
Board was also considered. The said Report does not indicate any
grave risk to the appellant’s daughter if she is permitted to
terminate the pregnancy. However, the High Court was of the
view that the appellant’s daughter could give birth to the child
and the child could be given up for adoption in case she did not
intend to bring up the child. This would also be in the interest of
a viable foetus being born alive.
12. Being aggrieved by the said direction, the appellant is before
this Court.
5
13. During the course of submissions, appellant’s counsel
contended that if the minor daughter of the appellant is permitted
to complete the pregnancy and give birth to the child, it would
cause grave mental trauma to her owing to the social stigma that
would be attached to her. It was submitted that this is a case
where the appellant’s daughter would be forced to give birth to an
illegitimate child which she may well avoid although it may have
been belated in taking a decision in the matter. But nevertheless
the rights of the appellant’s daughter must be protected and
enforced even though ultimately the termination of the pregnancy
may result in the foetus being born alive at this stage. It was
submitted that the rights of the pregnant daughter of the
appellant must prevail over the rights of an unborn foetus.
14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent(s)-
State of Maharashtra contended that each case would have to be
looked at on its own facts and circumstances having regard to the
fact that there have been certain cases where termination has not
been permitted by the High Court or by this Court whereas there
are also other cases where termination has been permitted
beyond the period stipulated under the provisions of the Act. In
6
this regard, she submitted that the High Court has taken care of
not only the interest of the daughter of the appellant, who is to
deliver the child, but also the interest of the child to be born
inasmuch as she submitted that if the foetus remains alive there
are chances of the foetus suffering from ailments and the risk
would be greater if the foetus is born alive which would require
neonatal treatment of a very high order and for a longer period of
time. On the other hand, if the appellant’s daughter is directed to
complete the pregnancy and give birth to a child, there is a
possibility of the child being a healthy one and she may be
permitted to give up the child for adoption.
15. The issues raised by the respective sides are quite
persuasive and delicate inasmuch as the arguments advanced by
the respective counsel have their own weight. But what has to be
considered in the instant case is ultimately the right of the minor
child i.e. the appellant’s daughter to continue a pregnancy which
is ex facie outside marriage and the child to be born is to a
pregnant woman who is stated to be minor. The appellant’s
daughter was a minor when she conceived and who has to face
this unfortunate situation of having a pregnancy owing to a
7
relationship that she had. The fact that presently she has crossed
eighteen years of age is an irrelevant factor.
16. We are also not on the question whether the relationship
was consensual or whether it was a case of sexual assault
although a criminal complaint has been lodged by the appellant
in January 2026. That is not the issue to be considered in the
present case. Ultimately, the denominator is the fact that the
child to be born is not out of a wedlock and secondly, the mother
to be of the child does not want to bear such a child. If the
interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her
reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The
court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to
complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so;
that would be more traumatic for a minor such as the appellant’s
daughter in the instant case.
17. In this regard we reiterate what has been observed by one of
us (Nagarathna, J) in X vs. Union of India & Another, I.A.
No.211690 of 2023 in M.A. No.2157 of 2023 in Writ Petition
8
(Civil) No.1137 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 as under:
“5. In this context, it would be necessary to reiterate the
three Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in X vs.
Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1321, authored by Dr. Justice D.Y.
Chandrachud, presently the Chief Justice of India, of
which paragraphs 99, 101 and 102 read as under:
“99. The ambit of reproductive rights is not
restricted to the right of women to have or not
have children. It also includes the constellation
of freedoms and entitlements that enable a
woman to decide freely on all matters relating to
her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive
rights include the right to access education and
information about contraception and sexual
health, the right to decide whether and what type
of contraceptives to use, the right to choose
whether and when to have children, the right to
choose the number of children, the right to
access safe and legal abortions, and the right to
reproductive healthcare. Women must also have
the autonomy to make decisions concerning
these rights, free from coercion or violence.
xxx
101. To this, we may add that a woman is often
enmeshed in complex notions of family,
community, religion, and caste. Such external
societal factors affect the way a woman exercises
autonomy and control over her body, particularly
in matters relating to reproductive decisions.
Societal factors often find reinforcement by way
of legal barriers restricting a woman’s right to
access abortion. The decision to have or not to
have an abortion is borne out of complicated life
circumstances, which only the woman can
choose on her own terms without external
9
interference or influence. Reproductive autonomy
requires that every pregnant woman has the
intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to
undergo abortion without any consent or
authorization from a third party.
102. The right to reproductive autonomy is
closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy.
As the term itself suggests, bodily autonomy is
the right to take decisions about one’s body. The
consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a
woman’s body as well as her mind cannot be
understated. The fetus relies on the pregnant
woman’s body for sustenance and nourishment
until it is born. The biological process of
pregnancy transforms the woman’s body to
permit this. The woman may experience swelling,
body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and
restricted mobility, to name a few of a host of
side effects. Further, complications may arise
which pose a risk to the life of the woman. A
mere description of the side effects of a
pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the
visceral image of forcing a woman to continue
with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, the
decision to carry the pregnancy to its full term or
terminate it is firmly rooted in the right to bodily
autonomy and decisional autonomy of the
pregnant woman.
(underlining by me)”
6. Unwanted pregnancy as a result of failure in a family
planning method, even during the period of Lactational
Amenorrhea as in the instant case or as a result of sexual
assault results in the same consequence. The pregnant
lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy.
In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable
or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant
considerations. What is to be focused upon is, whether,
10
the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not.
This is what has been emphasized by this Court in the
aforesaid three Judge Bench decision which is binding on
this Bench.
7. It may not be out of place to note that a foetus is
dependent on the mother and cannot be recognized as an
individual personality from that of the mother as its very
existence is owed to the mother. It would be incongruous
to conclude that the foetus has a separate identity from
the mother and in spite of the physical or mental health
of a mother being under threat, she will have to continue
her pregnancy until the foetus is born which would
endanger her delicate health. Such a position is contrary
to Article 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India which
recognize the right to life and liberty and particularly
those of a woman.
One cannot also lose sight of the fact that
reproduction is unique to women and throughout her life,
a woman goes through the process of menstruation,
pregnancy, delivery, post-delivery phase and ultimately
menopause. As stated above, right to reproductive health
being a woman’s human right would also include the
right to an abortion. Otherwise, a woman who is forced
into an unwanted pregnancy would experience physical
and mental trauma and to endure the pregnancy which
may continue in the post-natal period owing to which she
would have the burden of bringing up an additional child
and consequently, may lose out on other opportunities in
life including right to employment and contribution to the
income of the family.
xxx
This is not to say that in every case where there is an
unwanted pregnancy, this Court or the High Courts
ought to exercise its jurisdiction and order for
termination. It would depend on the facts of each case.
11
But in this case, when the petitioner is determined to
terminate her pregnancy and has completely detached
herself from the fact that she would be giving birth to her
child shortly, she cannot be made worse off by this Court
by declining to grant her the relief she has sought and
thereby forcing her to continue with an unwanted
pregnancy.”
18. In the circumstances, we accept the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant.
19. We allow this appeal and set aside the order dated
27.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of 2026.
20. We direct that the appellant’s daughter is permitted to
undergo medical termination of pregnancy.
21. It is needless to observe that the appellant herein shall give
a written undertaking consenting to the medical termination of
pregnancy of her daughter.
22. The appellant’s daughter is presently at J.J. Group of
Hospitals, Mumbai. We direct the J.J. Group of Hospitals,
Mumbai to conduct the procedure of medical termination of
12
pregnancy of the daughter of the appellant herein by bearing in
mind all medical safeguards.
23. Since there is a grave urgency expressed in the matter, we
shall release the operative portion of the order today itself.
24. We direct the Registry of this Court to release the operative
portion of the order during the course of the day.
…………………………………, J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………, J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 6, 2026.
13
ITEM NO.62/1 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)NO(S).4774/2026
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
27-01-2026 IN WPL NO. 2388/2026 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]
A (MOTHER OF X) PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
IA No. 33882/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 33883/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 06-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.
Mr. Ashley Cusher, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv.
Ms. Amita Sachdeva, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Ms. Arunima Das, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms
14
of the non-reportable judgment, which is placed on
file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
15
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.4774 OF 2026)
A (MOTHER OF X) APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
OPERATIVE ORDER OF THE JUDGMENT
Leave granted.
We allow this appeal and set aside the order
dated 27.01.2026 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of
2026.
We direct that the appellant’s daughter is
permitted to undergo medical termination of
pregnancy.
It is needless to observe that the appellant
herein shall give a written undertaking consenting to
the medical termination of pregnancy of her daughter.
The appellant’s daughter is presently at J.J.
Group of Hospitals, Mumbai. We direct the J.J.Group
of Hospitals, Mumbai to conduct the procedure of
Medical termination of pregnancy of the daughter of
the appellant herein by bearing in mind all medical
safeguards.
16
Since there is a grave urgency expressed in the
matter, we shall release the operative portion of the
order today itself.
We direct the Registry of this Court to release
the operative portion of the order during the course
of the day.
…………………………………………………, J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………………………….J.
(UJJAL BHUYAN)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 6, 2026
17
ITEM NO.62 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)NO(S).4774/2026
[ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
27-01-2026 IN WPL NO. 2388/2026 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT
OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY]
A (MOTHER OF X) PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
IA No. 33882/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 33883/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 06-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu M. Adkar, Adv.
Mr. Ashley Cusher, Adv.
Mr. Mohit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shambhavi Kanade, Adv.
Ms. Amita Sachdeva, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Devanshi Singh, Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.
Ms. Arunima Das, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT:
Leave granted.
18
Appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms
of the signed order, which is placed on file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(B. LAKSHMI MANIKYA VALLI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(REASONED JUDGMENT SHALL FOLLOW)
19