The split verdict in response to a 27-year-old woman’s petition seeking termination of her 26-week pregnancy has once again ignited the complex and unending pro-choice vs pro-life debate. The woman, who discovered her pregnancy late due to Lactational Amenorrhea, had sought to abort the foetus as she is dealing with postpartum depression and is not mentally prepared to have a third child. The petitioner is also learnt to have attempted suicide. Interestingly, the two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had initially agreed to her request — respecting her decisional choice and bodily autonomy. The turnaround came after the government flagged a report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) which said that the foetus was viable and had a heartbeat. Following the report, Justice Hima Kohli refused permission citing the “viable foetus” — a view that was echoed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud who was heading a different bench. The CJI highlighted the rights of the unborn child. Justice BV Nagarathna, on the contrary, stuck to her original decision, saying that the “interest of the petitioner must be given more preference.” These divergent views coming out of the apex court are reflective of the prevailing dichotomies and ambiguities regarding abortion laws in India’s legal landscape. The primary law governing this issue in the country is the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Amendment Act 2021. The Act provides that an individual seeking abortion up to the gestation period of 20 weeks will have to seek the opinion of one medical practitioner. If the gestation period happens to be between 20 and 24 weeks, then opinion of two medical practitioners must be sought. In the cases where the gestation period exceeds 24 weeks, the opinion of a state-level medical board is needed for abortion, in case of suspected foetal abnormalities. In the case in question, the gestation period is 26 weeks, and abnormalities in the foetus have not been ascertained. As far as the provisions of the MTP Act go, firstly, they appear to have been formulated keeping the state of the foetus in mind, and not the health and autonomy of the pregnant individual. Secondly, it is unclear on what basis the gestation period for abortion is categorised. These legal anomalies can be understood in terms of the socio-cultural sensitivity that surrounds the issue of abortion in India. Additionally, there also seems to be a lack of legal clarity on whether a foetus can or cannot be considered as a living being. In absence of this clarity, the law seeks to take guidance from society and culture, which can more often be misleading. This is where the role of the State and also the medical fraternity comes in. Between the individual and the rule of law, these elements can stand both as the facilitator and obstructor of justice. This extra-judicial discretion is not in sync with the uniform nature that laws must adopt. The loophole in balancing the foetal safety and decisional autonomy of pregnant women can be misused by the State to track her sexuality and undermine her emotional and mental health, intentionally or otherwise. Furthermore, the delay caused by non-reconciling medical practitioners and medical boards can take a huge toll on the well-being of the pregnant individual. It may be worth noting here that in the past, several courts, including the SC, have granted the permission to abortion even in later stages on account of safeguarding petitioners’ mental health and wellbeing. It is difficult to justify the case-by-case discrepancies created by a large grey area in India’s abortion law’s landscape. It leads to a sense of uncertainty among women holding unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, further exacerbating their woes. It also amounts to non-assurance of uniform justice. It is true that a balance between foetal safety and fundamental rights of pregnant individuals should be established, but balance has to come through scientific and refined legal provisions, rather than the discretion of unpredictable and non uniform entities. It is uneasy to see the top judges of the Supreme Court so starkly differ on this matter of fundamental rights. Rigorous and well-crafted laws are needed to ward off ambiguities.