Facts of the Case

The case revolved around a petition filed by a woman seeking medical termination of her 17-year-and-5-month-old daughter’s pregnancy. The mother contended that her daughter had been kidnapped and raped, resulting in pregnancy. According to the petitioner, the minor was not mentally or emotionally fit to continue the pregnancy and lacked the capacity to make an informed decision. Consequently, she sought court permission to terminate the pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), relying on her position as the girl’s natural guardian.

The minor girl, referred to as Ms. ‘S’, was reportedly in a relationship with Mr. X and had left home voluntarily on two occasions. Police investigations revealed that she had been in a consensual relationship with the accused over several years and had stated that the pregnancy resulted from consensual intercourse and not coercion. At the time of the petition, the girl was admitted to Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur, with a haemoglobin level of 9, and her mother argued that her medical condition was not suitable for carrying the pregnancy to term.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that since her daughter was a minor, she lacked the legal and mental capacity to make reproductive decisions independently. It was submitted that under Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act, consent of the natural guardian sufficed for terminating the pregnancy of a minor. The counsel emphasized that in several precedents, including Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Nisha Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan, courts had allowed termination of pregnancy based on the guardian’s consent, particularly when medical or psychological harm was anticipated.

The petitioner also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, interpreting it to mean that the court’s assessment of a pregnant person’s health and circumstances could outweigh the minor’s personal view. It was argued that the girl’s health was critical, and she was not in a position to deliver the child. The petition also referred to the Gopal Lal judgment to support the claim that mental immaturity or illness warranted termination based on guardian consent. As an alternative prayer, the petitioner requested the Court to ensure that all medical support and victim compensation be provided if the termination was not permitted.

Contentions of the Respondent

On behalf of the State, the Assistant Advocate General argued that the minor had voluntarily chosen not to terminate the pregnancy. She was fully aware of the implications and had expressed her willingness to take responsibility for the child’s upbringing. The State placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in A (Mother of X) to argue that the MTP Act does not permit interference by guardians, families, or even the State in the reproductive autonomy of a pregnant person.

It was further submitted that the MTP Act and jurisprudence surrounding reproductive rights prioritize the consent and autonomy of the pregnant individual, even if she is a minor, when she is deemed mature enough to understand the consequences. The State emphasized that forcing termination against the girl’s wishes would result in significant mental and physical trauma and contravene her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Court’s Observations

The Rajasthan High Court, presided by Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali, framed two crucial questions: (1) whether the guardian’s consent could override the minor’s refusal to terminate her pregnancy; and (2) whether a minor’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution included the right to beget or create life. The Court observed that although the girl was legally a minor, her consistent conduct including her decision to leave home with the accused and her clear statement regarding the consensual nature of the relationship indicated a sufficient level of maturity and understanding.

The Court noted that Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act indeed permits a guardian to consent on behalf of a minor, but the statute does not provide clarity on how to proceed when the views of the guardian and minor diverge. This, the Court held, was a matter for judicial interpretation. The bench relied heavily on the precedent laid down in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, reiterating that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy, including the choice to carry a pregnancy to term, is a facet of her personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that “No entity, even the state, can speak on behalf of the pregnant person and usurp her consent.”

The bench further referred to the Chhattisgarh High Court judgment in Ram Avatar v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the court had refused to allow termination despite the girl being a minor, recognizing her ability to make an informed decision. In this case too, the minor victim had categorically stated she wished to retain the pregnancy and raise the child. The Court found that her view demonstrated awareness of the social and economic responsibilities involved and that ignoring her consent would amount to forced termination, potentially causing grave harm.

The Court clarified that while the MTP Act permits guardian consent when the minor wishes to terminate the pregnancy, the same logic cannot be reversed to allow guardian consent to compel termination against the pregnant minor’s will. Thus, the Court concluded that reproductive choice, including the decision to continue pregnancy, lies solely with the pregnant person, regardless of age, provided she has sufficient understanding.

Court’s Order

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by the mother, affirming that the pregnant minor’s consent to continue the pregnancy must be respected. The Court held that the girl, despite being under the age of 18, was mentally mature enough to understand and accept the consequences of her decision, and her refusal to undergo termination was legally and constitutionally protected.

The Court directed the State to ensure that all necessary medical care be provided to the girl for her safe delivery. It also ordered that appropriate compensation be paid to her by the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. The ruling reaffirmed the primacy of reproductive autonomy and set a precedent emphasizing that even a minor’s informed decision regarding her body cannot be overridden by parental or state authority.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai