Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the consent of a pregnant minor who has expressed unwillingness to terminate her pregnancy must take precedence over the consent given by her guardians. The Court directed that the minor be provided with all necessary medical care before and after delivery, and that she be allowed to reside at the Child Welfare Committee until attaining majority. The Court further ordered that her privacy be strictly maintained and that necessary educational and nutritional facilities be provided.

The petitioner, father of a 17-year-old victim, approached the Court seeking permission to terminate his daughter’s pregnancy. The petition stated that three FIRs had been registered against the accused for rape upon the victim and that the pregnancy was a result of this offence. The petitioner argued that the victim, being a minor, was unable to make decisions regarding her future and sought the Court’s permission to terminate the pregnancy.

Also Read: “Directions in Paragraphs 25 and 26 Are Deleted”: Supreme Court Recalls Order Removing Allahabad HC Judge From Criminal Jurisdiction After CJI’s Request

On 27.07.2025, the Court directed the State to medically examine the victim. A panel of four doctors confirmed that she was 22 weeks and 4 days pregnant. The doctors opined that termination below 24 weeks is permissible under Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, when performed by a registered medical practitioner.

Subsequently, the Court received letters from the Rajasthan Legal Services Authority and the Child Welfare Society, Alwar, enclosing a letter from the victim. In her letter, the victim stated that she wished to deliver the child and did not want her pregnancy terminated, alleging that the petition had been submitted without her consent. She also stated in a recorded statement to a counsellor that she was in love with one Kanhaiya, had lived with him for 26 days, and did not wish to return to her parental home. She expressed her wish to stay at the Child Welfare Committee in Kanpur until she turned 18.

The victim alleged harsh and abusive behaviour from her parents, claimed her mother had demanded money from her and Kanhaiya, and reiterated her unwillingness to undergo medical examination. She also expressed the desire to go with Kanhaiya after attaining majority.

The Court recorded: "The law recognizes a woman’s autonomy to decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. The right of autonomy of a woman/girl permits her to either continue with the pregnancy and give birth to a child or opt for its termination and it is the solitary choice of the female in any given case. No law or coercive force can compel her to terminate the pregnancy against her wishes."

The Court further observed: "An unborn child has a life of its own and rights of its own and the rights of unborn are recognized by law... If the unborn has life, though it is not a natural person, it can certainly be considered as a person within the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution, for there is absolutely no reason to treat an unborn child differently from a born child."

Referring to the victim’s statement, the Court stated: "Once the victim has clearly expressed her unwillingness to abort the fetus and her desire to deliver the child... it reflects that she has a reasonable understanding of the social and economic implications associating with raising a child."

The Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, noting: "The MTP Act does not allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person... 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 concluded: "Granting the permission, as sought for by the parents... would not only violate the victim’s Right to Life but also infringe the right to life of the fetus/unborn child... since the petitioner’s daughter has clearly expressed her unwillingness to terminate the pregnancy... her consent must take precedence over the consent given by her guardians."

The Court directed that the State ensure all medical facilities related to childbirth are provided to the minor victim. The doctors were instructed to ensure that she receives requisite care and appropriate precautions are taken pre-delivery and post-delivery. The respondents were directed to provide her with necessary care, nutritious food, and medical attention before and after delivery. The Superintendent, Child Welfare Committee, Alwar was directed to allow the victim to reside there until attaining majority.

Also Read: Denying Maternity Leave To Contractual Employee Violates Article 14 | Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Order Against Clinic Assistant And Affirms Benefits Under Maternity Benefit Act

The Principal Secretary, Department of Medical and Health, and the Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development were instructed to provide a female nursing attendant at the Child Welfare Committee for the victim’s safe delivery. The Superintendent, Child Welfare Committee, Alwar was further directed to provide all medical facilities free of cost and ensure a safe environment for delivery. The privacy of the victim and child was to be strictly maintained.

The State was also directed to admit the victim to any school if she wished to study, and to provide her with all necessary educational facilities. The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and District Legal Services Authority, Alwar were directed to instruct the Child Welfare Officer to visit the Child Welfare Committee and submit quarterly reports to the Court confirming the wellbeing of the victim and child. The Superintendent of Police, Alwar was directed to monitor compliance and submit quarterly reports

.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Ms. Kamini Pareek, Mr. Sarthak Chobey and Mr. Gaurav Sharma.

For the Respondents: Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma, Mr. Yash Joshi and Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG.

Case Title: XXX v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11124/2025

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand