Rajasthan High Court: In writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner seeking the termination of her 17-year-old minor daughter’s pregnancy under Sections 3 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (‘MTP Act’), which allegedly resulted from rape, a Single Judge Bench of Chandra Prakash Shrimali, J., relying on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 and prioritizing the reproductive autonomy of the minor dismissed the petition. The Court held that despite her minority, her clear and mature decision to continue the pregnancy and raise the child superseded her mother’s desire for termination.
Factual Matrix:
The petitioner had lodged a complaint stating that her minor daughter, aged 17 years and 5 months, without informing anyone, went with the accused on 12-01-2025. The police lodged a complaint under Section 137 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 (‘BNS’), and after investigation, the police secured both of them from Jodhpur. The accused was arrested, and minor daughter was sent for medical examination where her UPT test report came back positive, indicating pregnancy, which the mother alleged was a result of rape committed by the accused. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition requesting her daughter to be transferred to a government hospital where her pregnancy be terminated. A medical board’s report dated 14-06-2025 confirmed a pregnancy of 22 weeks and 3 days, stating that termination carried the “usual risk of the procedure and teenage pregnancy”. However, in a consent memo dated 05-06-2025, the minor daughter unequivocally stated her unwillingness to abort the fetus. She further told the police that her pregnancy resulted from consensual intercourse with the accused without any coercion.
Issues:
- Can a guardian’s consent for abortion be accepted when the pregnant minor daughter herself is unwilling to terminate the pregnancy?
-
Does a minor daughter’s right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution include the right to beget a life?
Court’s Reasoning and Decision:
The Court noted that the minor daughter and the accused had known each other for the last 9 years and had thus voluntarily ran away in the year 2023, which led to the filing of this petition. . Subsequently, in January 2025, when the accused was out on bail, the accused and the victim again voluntarily ran away and have been living in a conjugal relationship with each other.
The Court observed that despite being a minor, the daughter was a “sufficiently mature girl capable of making decisions and further capable of understanding the consequences of the decision taken”. Her expressed unwillingness to abort the fetus and her desire to raise the child reflected a clear understanding of the social and economic factors involved.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 608, which unequivocally states that “the MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with the termination. The Act or indeed the jurisprudence around abortion developed by the courts leave no scope for interference by the family or the partner of a pregnant person in matters of reproductive choice”. The Supreme Court further held that “where the opinion of a minor pregnant person differs from the guardian, the court must regard the view of the pregnant person as an important factor while deciding the termination of the pregnancy”.
The Court noted that while Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act provides for a guardian’s consent for minors, it does not address situations where the minor’s view diverges from the guardian’s, leaving room for interpretations by Courts as per the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Court affirmed that the minor victim possesses the “right to beget a life and/or create a life, which is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.
The Court found no indication in the medical report that the minor would suffer grave physical injury if she carried the child to term of her own free will.
The Court relied on Suchita Srivastava (Supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that a woman’s reproductive choices, including the decision to procreate or abstain, are fundamental to her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, requiring respect for her privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity. This includes the right to refuse sexual activity, use contraception, or undergo sterilization. While reproductive rights encompass carrying a pregnancy to its full term, giving birth, and raising children, the MTP Act places reasonable restrictions on abortion due to the “compelling state interest” in protecting the prospective child, which is a reasonable restriction. When applying the “Best interests” test, the Court’s decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of other stakeholders such as guardians or society in general. The cost of care and assistance should not be a ground for the denial of reproductive rights.
The Court, relying on Suchita Srivastava (Supra) held that since the minor daughter of the petitioner was unwilling to abort the child, the consent of the pregnant woman prevails over the consent given by her guardian. The Court disposed of the petition, upholding the pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.
The Court further directed the State Authorities to bear all medical expenses for the minor pregnant victim and provide her with proper medical facilities for her delivery. Additionally, the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority (‘RLSA’) and the District Legal Service Authority (‘DLSA’), Jodhpur, were directed to pay a suitable amount of compensation to the daughter of the petitioner under the provisions of the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
[X v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Writ Petition No. 11932/2025, decided on 19-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Sapna Vaishnav, Advocate
For the respondent: I.R. Choudhary, AAG, Pawan Bhari, N.S Rajpurohit, AAG, Shersingh Rathore, AAAG, Rakhi Choudhary