The Supreme Court in the case of Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, placed the ‘individual’ in the heart of privacy, instead of ‘walling off’ the private space, thus recognizing the creation of the ‘individual’. This essay seeks to analyse Justice Chandrachud’s majority opinion in the Puttaswamy judgement from the lens of Feminism, discussing reproductive rights as a key aspect of decisional autonomy or intimate decision. It argues that Justice Chandrachud while trying to form a global perspective of decisional privacy in relation to abortion, ends up formulating a doctrine which lacks indigenous appeal as it is unable to engage with the ‘voices of Indian women’. He upholds a highly contested physiological paradigm of abortion, by placing abortion in the private sphere, rather than as an integral condition for a decent life. This does not perpetuate the establishment of class divisions among women themselves. Further, the law of privacy protects the existing aggregation of power in the hands of man as women in India are influenced directly or indirectly by prevailing social forces and ethos or families and husbands. Thus, the law fails severely to contextualize the woman in question and instead ends up talking about an American middle class one.