Background: Timing of Induction of labour in low-risk pregnancies continues to be a matter of debate with perinatal risks such as fetal hypoxia, shoulder dystocia, meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS), macrosomia in postdated pregnancies and fear of litigation on one side and increasing stress on de-medicalisation of labour process on other side. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial that included the low risk pregnant women at or beyond 39 weeks of gestation age. Eligible participants were randomized to group A (induction at 40 weeks gestation) and group B (expectant management at 41 weeks gestation) and outcomes were compared. Results: Out of 174 total participants recruited, 56 (32.18%) participants were randomised to group A. 118 (67.82%) participants were allotted group B. Majority of participants, 78.57% and 78.81% delivered vaginally in both group A and group B respectively. Most common indication for caesarean section was fetal distress in both group A and B. There was no maternal and neonatal mortality in either group. There was no significant difference in caesarean rate amongst group A (21.43%) and group B (21.19%).Chi-Square = 0.001, df = 2, p-value = 0.999. Expectant management till 41 weeks is not associated with increased adverse neonatal outcome. Conclusion: A policy of induction of labour at 40 weeks of gestation in low risk pregnancies was not associated with any statistically significant change in caesarean rates irrespective of parity or Bishop score. This intervention did not result in any statistically significant reduction in perinatal morbidity (MAS, need of hospitalisation, APGAR score <7, birth weight > 4 kg).