Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali held that a pregnant minor victim, having sufficient understanding, has the exclusive right to decide whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of X v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of X v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2025) Case? 

• A mother filed a writ petition seeking court direction to terminate the pregnancy of her 17-year-old daughter, who was allegedly a victim of rape. 
• The minor daughter had left home on 12th January 2025 with one Dinesh Kumar, carrying relevant documents and Rs. 50,000 without informing anyone.  
• The police registered a complaint under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 (BNS) and subsequently secured both individuals from Jodhpur.  
• Upon medical examination, the minor's pregnancy test came positive, with the ultrasound revealing a pregnancy of 22 weeks and 3 days.  
• The mother alleged that her daughter became pregnant due to rape committed by the accused and requested referral to a government hospital for pregnancy termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP,1971) .  
• However, the minor victim categorically stated in her consent memo dated 5 June 2025 that she was not willing to abort the foetus.  
• The victim further told police that the pregnancy resulted from consensual intercourse with the accused, not coercion. It emerged that the victim and accused had known each other for nine years and had previously eloped in 2023, after which they were secured by police and the accused was jailed, but they eloped again in January 2025 when he was out on bail.  
• The medical board confirmed that while pregnancy termination was possible with usual procedural risks, the critical 20-week period for safe abortion had already passed. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that although the petitioner's daughter was a minor aged 17 years and 5 months, she was sufficiently mature and capable of understanding the consequences of her decision regarding the pregnancy.  
• The Court noted that the minor victim's unwillingness to abort the foetus and her willingness to raise the child independently reflected her clear understanding of the social and economic factors associated with child-rearing. The Court held that ignoring the minor's consent completely would lead to forcible termination of pregnancy, causing grave mental and physical trauma to her.  
• The Court further observed that Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act provides for natural guardian consent but does not address situations where there is divergence between the minor's and guardian's views, leaving interpretation open to courts based on case circumstances. 
• The Court emphasized that pregnant women have autonomy over their bodies and the right to make reproductive choices, with the consent of the pregnant woman being paramount and prevailing over guardian consent.  
• The Court concluded that the minor victim had the right to beget life, which is a facet of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, and accordingly dismissed the petition while directing state authorities to bear medical expenses and provide compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. 

What is Legal Provision Related to Consent of Minor to Terminate Pregnancy? 

• Under Section 3(4)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, no pregnancy of a woman who has not attained the age of eighteen years shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian.  
• However, the Act does not explicitly address situations where there is a divergence of views between the minor and her guardian regarding pregnancy termination. 
• While the statutory provision mandates guardian consent for minors, courts have recognised that where a sufficiently mature minor expresses unwillingness to terminate her pregnancy, her autonomous decision must be given paramount consideration as part of her reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• The consent requirement under Section 3(4)(a) primarily applies to situations where a pregnant minor seeks to terminate her pregnancy, ensuring parental guidance in the decision-making process.  
• In cases where the minor categorically refuses termination despite guardian consent, forcing such termination would constitute a violation of her bodily autonomy and right to reproductive choice.  
• Therefore, the consent of a pregnant minor, even if under eighteen years of age, carries significant weight when she demonstrates sufficient maturity and understanding of the consequences of continuing the pregnancy, and such consent may prevail over guardian consent in specific circumstances as determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. 

Cases Referred  

• Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration (2009): 
  • The Supreme Court held that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and no entity, including the state, can speak on behalf of a pregnant person and usurp her consent in matters of reproductive choices and abortion.  
• Ram Avatar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2020): 
  • Recognised the autonomy of pregnant women, including minors, to decide on continuing their pregnancies and established that forced termination against a woman's wishes would violate her right to life and dignity under Article 21.