A comprehensive new study has revealed significant inconsistencies in how Indian courts have handled abortion cases over the past five years, often delaying or denying access to care despite clear legal provisions. The findings raise serious concerns about the judiciary’s approach to reproductive rights and the interpretation of abortion laws.
Titled “The Bench and the Body: An Analysis of Abortion Jurisprudence in India (2019–2024),” the report was published Monday by the Centre for Health Equity, Law and Policy at the Indian Law Society in Pune. Researchers reviewed 305 court rulings delivered under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, including those following the 2021 amendments that expanded legal access to abortion.
The study found that nearly 11% of all abortion requests were rejected by courts during the five-year period. Strikingly, most of these rejections (82%) followed the recommendations of medical boards whose assessments are often treated as binding despite the absence of such a requirement in law.
Many rulings cited concepts like “foetal viability” or the “rights of the unborn child” to justify denying termination arguments not codified in the MTP Act. Researchers pointed out that such language reflects a misreading of the law and, in some cases, a disregard for the rights of the pregnant person.
Among the cases reviewed, over half involved underage survivors of rape. Another third concerned pregnancies with serious foetal anomalies, while a smaller portion were brought by adult rape survivors. Although courts permitted 180 abortions beyond the statutory 24-week limit, the decisions varied drastically between jurisdictions, even in cases with similar facts.
The report also criticised courts for imposing unjustified delays, sometimes stretching up to three months, in granting permission for abortions. Such delays, researchers warned, can effectively deny time-sensitive medical care and compound the trauma faced by women seeking terminations.
Alarmingly, the study documented instances where courts unnecessarily included husbands as parties in abortion petitions, despite legal provisions clearly stating that only the consent of the pregnant person is required.
“The inconsistency in abortion rulings points to a wider disregard for women’s autonomy and their constitutional right to health,” the report said. It called for a more coherent and rights-affirming legal approach that prioritises bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Researchers also flagged problematic judicial language in several rulings particularly in cases involving survivors of sexual assault which sometimes reflected poor understanding of women’s health, biology, and constitutional protections such as dignity and privacy.
The data highlights that although the majority of abortion requests were eventually granted, a substantial number involved women particularly minors and sexual assault survivors who were legally eligible for abortion and should not have needed court approval at all. The report suggests this points to failures and ambiguities within the healthcare system, with medical practitioners either misunderstanding or refusing to follow the law, leaving patients with no option but to seek judicial intervention.
Conducted over 14 months by a legal research team, the study urges urgent legal reform. Among its recommendations: decriminalising abortion, offering clear guidelines to healthcare providers, and grounding reproductive rights within a gender justice and constitutional rights framework.
