The Supreme Court, emphasizing the "fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution," underscored the significance of considering the opinion of a pregnant minor as an "important factor" in abortion decisions within a notable ruling.

"The right to choose and reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution," the Court asserted, emphasizing the paramount importance of the pregnant person's consent in matters concerning reproductive choices and abortion.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court advised medical boards tasked with evaluating pregnant individuals beyond twenty-four weeks of gestational age to include assessments of both the physical and mental health of the individual.

On April 29, the Supreme Court rescinded its previous order from April 22, wherein it had granted permission for a 14-year-old girl to undergo a medical termination of her 30-week pregnancy. This decision came after the girl's parents expressed their intention to allow the pregnancy to reach full term. The court revisited the matter during a hearing on a petition filed by the girl's mother, which contested the Bombay High Court's ruling that denied the request for pregnancy termination.

The Supreme Court had previously permitted the termination of the 30-week pregnancy of the rape survivor, overturning a ruling by the High Court. Terming it an "exceptional case," the Court sanctioned the abortion, citing a hospital report as the basis for its decision.

In its order dated April 29, the Supreme Court emphasized that delays resulting from changes in the medical board's opinion or procedural matters within the court system should not undermine the fundamental rights of pregnant individuals. According to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the upper limit for aborting the fetus stands at 24 weeks for married women and individuals falling under special categories.

These special categories encompass rape survivors, as well as other vulnerable groups such as differently-abled individuals and minors.

"The MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with the termination. The Act leavess no scope for interference by the family or the partner of a pregnant person in matters of reproductive choice," stressed the top court.

The Supreme Court clarified that it rescinded its previous order permitting 'X' to terminate her pregnancy, stating that the decision was initially made to uphold the decisional and bodily autonomy of the pregnant individual and her parents.

The court emphasized that the decision to continue the pregnancy to term, even if the court had initially allowed termination, rests solely with the individual.

 In explaining their choice of terminology, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra clarified why they opted for the term 'pregnant person' instead of 'pregnant woman.' This decision came amidst ongoing discussions regarding the use of gender-neutral language to address gender identities.

"We use the term 'pregnant person' and recognize that in addition to cisgender women, pregnancy can also be experienced by some non-binary people and transgender men among other gender identities," the court stated in a footnote.