Bishops raise alarm over court-ordered late-term pregnancy termination

NEW DELHI (Indian Catholic News) — Catholic bishops in India say “The termination of a viable foetus, particularly when safer alternatives exist, calls into question the balance between autonomy and the protection of life,” warning against a Supreme Court direction permitting the termination of a 30-week pregnancy involving a minor.

In a strongly worded statement on May 2, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India (CBCI) expressed “deep anguish” over reports of the court’s order directing the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, to carry out the procedure despite contrary medical advice.

The bishops said their statement referred to a Times of India report a day earlier, which said the Supreme Court upheld a minor’s autonomy despite AIIMS Delhi repeatedly seeking reconsideration of its order citing health risks to both the girl and the foetus.

The report said a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stressed that the state must respect a citizen’s bodily autonomy, noting a minor cannot be burdened with motherhood and its stigma, and directed AIIMS to explain the risks and implications of termination to the girl’s parents.

The bishops said the case “raises profound questions relating to Constitutional law, medical ethics, and the fundamental right to life of the unborn child.”

According to the CBCI, medical experts had unanimously concluded that termination at such an advanced stage “is not medically feasible,” instead recommending “a safer and more humane alternative—deferring delivery by a few weeks to enable a normal birth.”

The statement noted that such an approach would “significantly reduce health risks to the minor and increase the likelihood of delivering a healthy child,” adding that the state had also offered to assume responsibility for the child, including facilitating adoption.

Concerns over autonomy and medical ethics

The bishops cautioned that prioritising “choice” over expert medical opinion could have far-reaching consequences.

“While patient autonomy is an important principle, it cannot extend to demanding a medically contraindicated and harmful procedure,” the statement said. “Judicial decisions in such sensitive medico-legal matters must be guided by scientific evidence and expert opinion.”

They warned that “overriding unanimous medical advice risks setting a concerning precedent and undermines evidence-based decision-making.”

At 30 weeks, the bishops stressed, a foetus is “widely recognized as viable and capable of survival outside the womb,” raising concerns under Article 21 of India’s Constitution, which guarantees the right to life.

Legal framework and ethical dilemma

The CBCI also argued that the court’s directive appears to go beyond existing legal provisions governing late-term termination.

“The legal framework governing medical termination of pregnancy permits late-term procedures only under exceptional circumstances, such as grave risk to the mother or serious foetal abnormalities,” the statement said. “In the present case, medical opinion indicates that continuation of pregnancy for a short duration is safer, and the foetus is healthy.”

The bishops added that the directive places doctors in a difficult position, “compelling them to undertake a procedure that contradicts their professional judgment and ethical obligations.”

They warned such pressure “may adversely impact the integrity of medical practice and the willingness of experts to provide independent opinions in judicial proceedings.”

Call for reconsideration

While acknowledging the “social and psychological concerns surrounding early motherhood,” the CBCI said these must be weighed against “the certainty of physical harm and the implications for the right to life.”

The bishops pointed to the proposed alternative of state support and adoption as “a compassionate and legally sound pathway that warranted greater consideration.”

They urged urgent review of the decision, stating that “this matter again calls for immediate and urgent reconsideration in order to save the life of an innocent unborn, to uphold Constitutional principles, medical ethics, and the best interests of both the minor and the unborn child.”

The case has reignited debate in India over the limits of judicial authority in medical decisions, especially in complex cases involving minors, reproductive rights and late-term pregnancies.

Read the full statement.