“AUTONOMY VS.CONSTRAINT: JUDICIAL INCONSISTENCIES IN INDIAN ABORTION JURISPRUDENCE”

Abstract

Indian abortion law presents a paradox. While constitutional jurisprudence has progressively recognised women’s reproductive autonomy as their fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution, access to abortion continues to be governed by a statutory framework that treats termination as a conditional, provider-centric exception rather than a matter of choice. This contradiction has deepened in the post-2021 landscape, where despite liberal amendments to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and rights-affirming Supreme Court judgments, High Courts across the country continue to deny or delay access to abortion through restrictive interpretations, extra-statutory requirements, and increasing emphasis on foetal interests. This paper examines this contradiction of constitutional expansion and judicial restraint in Indian abortion jurisprudence. It argues that the persistent framing of abortion as a conditional right has resulted in inconsistent outcomes, erosion of decisional autonomy, and a troubling re-entry of moral reasoning into constitutional adjudication.