Minor’s Right To Continue Pregnancy Prevails Over Guardian’s Will | Rajasthan High Court Upholds Bodily Autonomy And Refuses Forced Abortion Despite Teenage Rape Allegation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali has held that the consent of a pregnant minor girl to continue her pregnancy prevails over the opposing consent of her natural guardian. In a writ petition seeking medical termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), the Court declined to permit the procedure, noting that the minor, aged 17 years and 5 months, had clearly expressed her unwillingness to terminate the pregnancy and her desire to raise the child.
The Court recorded that despite her minor status, the girl displayed sufficient maturity to comprehend the consequences of her decision and thus could exercise her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition filed by her mother seeking termination of pregnancy was dismissed. The Court directed the State Government to bear all medical expenses and provide necessary facilities, further instructing the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and the District Legal Services Authority to extend suitable compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
The petitioner, mother of the minor girl, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking termination of her minor daughter’s pregnancy. The daughter, Mst. 'S', aged 17 years and 5 months, was reportedly impregnated due to rape. The girl left her house on 12.01.2025 without informing anyone, along with the accused.
Following a complaint lodged by the petitioner, the police registered an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and recovered both individuals. The accused was arrested, and the girl underwent a medical examination where her urine pregnancy test returned positive. A writ of mandamus was filed seeking referral of the girl to the Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur, for termination of pregnancy.
An earlier order dated 13.06.2025 by the Court had directed a specific medical report regarding the girl's physical fitness for termination of pregnancy. In compliance, the Medical Board submitted a report dated 14.06.2025, stating: "According to the ultrasound Obstetrics Ms. 'S' is having pregnancy of 22 weeks 3 days. As per USG, single live fetus of 22 weeks 3 days. The pregnancy can be terminated with usual risk of the procedure and teenage pregnancy."
The Court noted that the twenty-week threshold for safe abortion had already lapsed. Further, a consent memo dated 05.06.2025 by the minor stated she was not willing to abort the fetus. In her police statement, she also asserted that the pregnancy resulted from consensual intercourse with the accused.
The petitioner contended that as the girl was a minor, she lacked the legal and mental capacity to make informed decisions about her health and future. It was argued that continuation of the pregnancy would expose her to various unforeseeable social and emotional complications. Invoking Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act, the petitioner maintained that in the case of a minor, guardian consent suffices for termination.
It was further submitted that the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra [Civil Appeal No. 5194/2024] had held that while the view of the pregnant woman is an "important factor", it is not necessarily binding when determining the permissibility of termination. The petitioner also referred to the victim's critical physical state, citing a haemoglobin level of 9, and invoked Section 3(2)(i) of the MTP Act which permits abortion where continuation of pregnancy would risk grave physical or mental harm.
Citations were made to Gopal Lal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Kishan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and Nisha Vaishnav vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., where permission was granted for medical termination based on guardian requests and medical risk.
The respondents, represented by state counsel, opposed the petition, asserting the minor’s absolute unwillingness to undergo abortion and her readiness to raise the child. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in A (Mother of X), asserting that MTP provisions do not permit interference by guardians or partners against the will of a pregnant woman, even if she is a minor.
The Court first examined the legal question: "Whether the consent of natural guardian for termination of pregnancy of minor daughter can be accepted when the pregnant minor daughter herself is not agreeable for such termination?" and "Whether the minor daughter's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to beget a life or create a life?"
The judgment recorded that the girl had known the accused for nine years, and they had previously eloped in 2023. Following the accused's release on bail in 2025, they again ran away together and engaged in a consensual relationship. The Court found that the minor girl had sufficient understanding and maturity to make decisions regarding her pregnancy.
It observed: "The minor victim has showed her unwillingness that she doesn't want to abort the fetus and that she is willing to raise the child on her own, reflects that she clearly understands all the social and economical factors associated with raising a child."
Referring to A (Mother of X), the Court quoted: "The MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with the termination... 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."
It cited Ram Avatar vs. State of Chhattisgarh, where the High Court refused to direct abortion of a 17-year-old girl’s fetus against her consent, stating: "Taking her unwillingness and further considering the medical opinion... this Court is not inclined to direct termination of her pregnancy, even otherwise such a direction for want of her consent would amount to forcible termination of pregnancy."
The Court held: "If her consent is ignored completely then this would lead to forceable termination of her pregnancy which would cause grave mental and physical trauma to her."
Further, it interpreted Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act, holding that while guardian consent is required when a minor seeks abortion, the Act is silent where the minor opposes abortion. Thus, the situation demands judicial interpretation.
The Court stated: "This Court is of the further opinion that the minor victim has the right to beget a life and/or create a life, which is a facet of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
It found that the cited medical reports did not confirm any grave physical risk from continuing the pregnancy. It also distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner, noting none involved minors who had refused abortion.
Relying on Suchita Srivastava & Anr. vs. Chandigarh Administration, the Court quoted: "The choice to continue the pregnancy to term, regardless of the Court having allowed termination of the pregnancy belongs to individual alone."
In Marimuthu vs. Inspector of Police, the Madras High Court had held: "Considering the right to life, which includes the right to beget a life and the right to dignity, the right to autonomy and bodily integrity, the foetus cannot be ordered to be aborted against the wishes of the victim girl."
The Court declined to issue the writ of mandamus sought by the petitioner and upheld the minor girl's right to continue her pregnancy. It stated: "This Court deems it proper to disposed of the present writ of mandamus while upholding right of pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy."
Further directions included: "With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the directions to the State Authorities that all the medical expenses of the minor pregnant victim shall be borne by the State government and she shall be provided with the proper medical facilities for her delivery."
"It is further directed to the Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority (RLSA) and the District Legal Service Authority (DLSA), Jodhpur to pay suitable amount of compensation to the daughter of the petitioner under the provision of Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011."
No orders were made regarding costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Sapna Vaishnav, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. I.R. Choudhary, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Pawan Bhari; Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General; Mr. Shersingh Rathore, Additional Advocate General; Ms. Rakhi Choudhary, Advocate
Case Title: XXX vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:27568
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11932/2025
Bench: Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali
[Read/Download order]
