Pranav B Prem

In a crucial ruling, the Madras High Court has allowed the termination of a 28-week pregnancy of a 16-year-old minor girl, reaffirming her right to reproductive autonomy. The court directed the Government Vellore Medical College to perform the procedure without delay, emphasizing that the minor's consent and well-being take precedence over procedural restrictions.

Case Background

The case was brought before the High Court following a writ petition filed by the girl’s mother, seeking medical termination of her daughter’s pregnancy. The minor, a 12th-standard student, conceived after an alleged sexual assault by a man named Dhilip, against whom a case has been registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. When local health authorities declined to perform the abortion due to the pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks, the petitioner approached the court.

Court’s Observations and Directives

Justice S. Sounthar, presiding over the case, noted that the minor girl had explicitly expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy, citing her upcoming board exams and future aspirations. The court directed the Judicial Magistrate-II, Vellore, to record the girl’s statement, which confirmed her consent.

A medical report from the Government Vellore Medical College was also presented before the court, which stated, "Regarding this case 'S', 17 years child unmarried POCSO case planned for termination, there are no significant contraindications to proceed at GVMCH, Vellore Medical College. If any complications arise during the procedure, they can be managed here itself." Emphasizing the fundamental right of an individual to make reproductive choices, the court observed, "The minor girl has got domain over her body and also got autonomy in taking a decision with regard to the continuance or otherwise of the pregnancy. The said right is the essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The court acknowledged that under Section 3(4) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a minor requires written consent from her guardian for termination. Considering the mother’s affidavit affirming her role as the primary caretaker, the court held that she qualified as the minor’s guardian under Section 2(a) of the MTP Act.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court reiterated that reproductive autonomy is an essential facet of Article 21. Citing A (Mother of 'X') v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 6 SCC 327, the judgment reaffirmed that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices, including abortion, is an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights. The court quoted, "The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone." Furthermore, the court referred to X (Minor Victim) v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), which emphasized, "A woman's decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself. This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme."

Final Directions

After considering the medical feasibility and the minor’s explicit consent, the court issued the following directives:

1. The Dean of the Government Vellore Medical College was instructed to arrange for the medical termination of the minor’s pregnancy at the earliest, prioritizing her best interests.

2. Since a criminal case under POCSO Act was pending against the accused, the court directed the hospital to preserve the fetus for DNA analysis to aid the ongoing investigation.

The court concluded that reproductive autonomy is a crucial element of personal liberty, and any procedural barriers should not override the minor’s right to make decisions regarding her body. The petition was thus disposed of, ensuring the minor’s choice was upheld in accordance with constitutional protections and judicial precedents.

Cause Title: xxx vs. The Inspector of Police, AWPS, Ranipet and Others 

Case No: W.P.No.2237 of 2025

Date: January-27-2025

Bench: Justice S. Sounthar

[Read/Download order]