Abstract

Abstract The intersection of reproductive autonomy, statutory legislative boundaries, and the professional conscience of medical practitioners presents a complex ethical and legal challenge in Indian jurisprudence. While the Supreme Court of India has consistently recognized reproductive choice as a fundamental facet of the right to life and dignity under Article 21, the judicial compulsion to perform non-therapeutic terminations of pregnancy beyond the viability threshold creates a significant conflict with the ethical obligations of obstetricians. This article examines the tensions arising when judicial directives override established statutory limits under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971,1 arguing that compelling medical professionals to perform interventions that conflict with their ethical duty to care for a viable fetus—where no life-threatening emergency exists—undermines professional autonomy.2 We conclude that a balanced framework, which safeguards both maternal reproductive rights and the conscientious objection rights of healthcare providers, is essential to maintain the integrity of medical practice within the constitutional order.

• 1.   Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971
• 2.   Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002. Available from: https://www.nmc.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Ethics-Regulations-2002.pdf
• 3.   LiveLaw News Network. Amend law to remove time limit for termination of pregnancy of minor rape victim: Supreme Court to Centre. LiveLaw. 2026 Apr 30 [cited 2026 May 1]. Available from: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/amend-law-to-remove-time-limit-for-termination-of-pregnancy-of-minor-rape-victim-supreme-court-to-centre-532351
• 4.   Kabra, SG. Verma, V. Medical Negligence & Judicial Overreach. [Redflower]; 2025.
• 5.   KAMTHAN, Manika ; AKHTAR, Ruksana COMMENTARY: Right to abortion of survivors of rape in India. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, [S.l.], v. IX, n. 1 (NS), p. 63, nov. 2023. ISSN 0975-5691. Avaialble at: . Date accessed: 01 May. 2026.
• 6.   Drishti IAS. Balancing reproductive autonomy and unborn child’s rights. 2023 Oct 16. Available from: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/balancing-reproductive-autonomy-and-unborn-child-rights
• 7.   World Health Organization. Law & policy: Conscientious objection. Available from: https://srhr.org/abortioncare/chapter-3/pre-abortion-3-3/law-policy-recommendation-22-conscientious-objection-3-3-9/
• 8.   Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
• 9.   Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
• 10.   Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
• 11.   UK Abortion Act, 1967.
• 12.   U.K. Parliament bans women from being prosecuted for late-term abortion : NPR https://www.npr.org/2025/06/18/g-s1-73294/uk-parliament-bans-women-prosecuted-late-term-abortion
• 13.   Kabra, SG. Abortion in India: Myth and Reality. Rawat Publications. 2013 https://www.amazon.in/Abortion-India-S-G-Kabra/dp/8131605647
• 14.   Human Rights Watch. Conscientious objection. 2025 Oct 14. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/10/15/conscientious-objection
• 15.   The Medical Defence Union. Conscientious objection. 2024 Jan 29. Available from: https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/conscientious-objection

Data Sharing Statement

Funding