Unborn Child's Right To Life

Source: Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that a guardian’s consent cannot override a minor rape victim’s unwillingness to terminate her pregnancy, protecting both her autonomy and the unborn child’s right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India. 

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

What was the Background of Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2025) ? 

• A father filed a petition seeking judicial permission to terminate his 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy, alleging she was raped and three FIRs were registered against the accused. 
• The petitioner approached Rajasthan High Court as natural guardian, contending his minor daughter was unable to make informed decisions due to her age. 
• Medical examination by four practitioners confirmed 22 weeks and 4 days pregnancy, with termination being legally permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. 
• The case took a significant turn when Rajasthan Legal Services Authority and Child Welfare Society submitted the victim's own statement to the court. 
• The minor revealed she had voluntarily left home due to alleged parental abuse and had been in a relationship with Kanhaiya for over four years. 
• The victim categorically expressed her desire to carry the pregnancy to full term and stated the termination petition was filed without her knowledge or consent. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Honourable Court observed that the fundamental principle governing reproductive autonomy recognizes a woman's inherent right to decide whether to continue with pregnancy or terminate it. This autonomy constitutes a solitary choice of the female concerned, and no legal provision or coercive force can compel termination against the pregnant person's wishes. 
• The Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses not only the right to beget life but also encompasses dignity, autonomy, and bodily integrity. 
• The Court noted that while Section 3(4)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act requires natural guardian consent for pregnancy termination in cases involving minors, the legislation remains silent regarding situations where conflict exists between the minor's wishes and guardian's consent. This legislative gap necessitates judicial interpretation based on individual case circumstances. 
• The Court observed that the Supreme Court of India, in the matter of A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra, established that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prohibits interference with personal reproductive choices and leaves no scope for family or partner interference in reproductive decisions. When opinions differ between a minor and guardian, courts must regard the pregnant person's view as a significant factor in determining termination matters. 
• The judicial assessment revealed that the victim, despite her minority, demonstrated sufficient maturity and understanding to comprehend the consequences of her decision. Her unwillingness to undergo termination, coupled with medical confirmation of advanced pregnancy stage exceeding 22 weeks without complications endangering her health, established her capacity for informed decision-making. 
• The Court observed that granting parental permission for forced termination would violate both the victim's Right to Life and the constitutional rights of the unborn child under Article 21. The medical board's opinion indicated that the pregnancy stage could result in live birth, with diagnosed foetal abnormalities being non-lethal in nature. 
• In the absence of threats to maternal life or health, the Court determined that the victim's reproductive choice, being a facet of fundamental rights under Article 21, must be respected. The judicial observation emphasized that an unborn child possesses life and rights, and after embryonic development into foetus stage (approximately six weeks), heartbeat commences, establishing life within the constitutional framework. 
• The Court concluded that forcing termination against the victim's express wishes would constitute a violation of both maternal and foetal rights guaranteed under the Constitution, thereby necessitating rejection of the parental petition and ensuring comprehensive medical and social support for the victim throughout pregnancy and post-delivery period. 

What are the Right of Unborn Child Under Article 21 ? 

• Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty of unborn children, though they are not considered natural persons. 
• The Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) established that unborn children have the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. 
• Life begins at conception and after six weeks when the embryo converts into foetus with heartbeat, it acquires constitutional protection under Article 21. 
• An unborn child has the fundamental right to be born and live a healthy life free from abnormalities as guaranteed under Article 21. 
• The State has a constitutional duty to protect the life and health of both pregnant women and their unborn children under Article 21. 
• The right of unborn children under Article 21 must be balanced against the mother's reproductive autonomy and constitutional rights. 
• Courts consider the unborn child's right to life as an important factor when deciding pregnancy termination cases, especially when there is conflict between the minor and guardian. 
• The legal maxim "Nasciturus pro iam nato habetur" treats unborn children as already born for protecting their constitutional interests. 
• Sections 312-316 of the Indian Penal Code recognize offences against unborn children, including culpable homicide for causing death of viable foetus. 
• Hindu Succession Act grants inheritance rights to unborn children, treating them as born persons for property purposes under constitutional framework. 
• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act acknowledges unborn children's rights while regulating circumstances for lawful abortion. 
• In absence of maternal health threats, the mother's reproductive choice must give way to the unborn child's right to be born under Article 21. 
• International conventions like the Convention on the Rights of the Child extend right to life protection to unborn children, supporting Indian constitutional interpretation.