New Delhi | Special Correspondent: Arun Sharma

In a deeply humane and rights-affirming observation, the Delhi High Court has held that compelling a woman to continue an unwanted or accidental pregnancy amounts to a violation of her bodily integrity and inflicts serious mental trauma. The court’s words resonate far beyond the courtroom, sending a strong message on autonomy, compassion and constitutional values.


Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while hearing a plea related to an unwanted pregnancy, underlined a stark social reality: “In an accidental or unwanted pregnancy, the man may not be there to share the burden, leaving the woman to fend for herself.” The court noted that the emotional, physical and social consequences of such a pregnancy are borne almost entirely by the woman.


Consent, Not Coercion, Is the Law
The High Court clarified that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a woman does not require the consent of her husband to terminate a pregnancy. The spirit of the law, the court said, is to protect a woman’s physical and mental well-being, not to trap her in prolonged suffering under social or marital pressure.
Rejecting the idea that motherhood can be imposed, the court stressed that forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will undermines her dignity and constitutional right to personal liberty.


Recognising the Invisible Trauma
Calling attention to the “harsh realities of a misogynistic world”, the court observed that unwanted pregnancies often bring with them social stigma, financial distress and lasting psychological scars. These factors, it said, cannot be brushed aside by a mechanical or insensitive application of the law.
Only the woman, the court emphasised, experiences the full weight of pregnancy—its pain, risks and emotional toll. Ignoring this truth would amount to denying her humanity.


A Message Beyond Law
By setting aside coercive legal proceedings against the woman in the case, the High Court reaffirmed a powerful principle: the law must stand with women, not stand over them.
The ruling is being seen as a significant reminder that justice is not just about statutes, but about empathy. In clear terms, the court has reiterated that a woman’s choice is not a favour granted by society—it is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
At a time when women’s autonomy is often contested, the judgment offers a rare blend of legal clarity and moral courage, reinforcing the idea that true justice begins with respect for choice.