The Rajasthan High Court has delivered a landmark ruling affirming that a minor’s refusal to terminate a pregnancy cannot be overridden by parental wishes, even in cases of sexual violence. The judgment reinforces the primacy of the minor’s autonomy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and establishes that medical risk assessments by statutory boards must prevail over emotional or social arguments for termination beyond the statutory gestational limit.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, father of a 16-year-old minor girl, sought termination of her pregnancy following her rape and subsequent impregnation. The minor was diagnosed with a 25-week pregnancy after an FIR was filed under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for kidnapping. The mother applied to the Child Welfare Committee for termination, but the minor herself, during counseling, expressed a clear and consistent desire to carry the pregnancy to term.
Procedural History
- 04 April 2025: FIR registered at Police Station Chechat, Kota Rural
- 20 January 2026: Minor and parents counseled by District Legal Services Authority; minor refused termination
- 22 January 2026: Medical Board convened at J.K. Loan Hospital, Kota, assessed pregnancy at 26 weeks 5 days +/- 1 week
- 24 January 2026: Writ petition filed before Rajasthan High Court seeking termination order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a court direction to terminate the pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and alternatively, demanded comprehensive medical care and compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the consent of a minor victim of sexual violence can be disregarded when her parents seek termination of a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, and whether the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 permits termination at 26 weeks without the minor’s explicit agreement.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel argued that continuing the pregnancy would inflict severe mental, emotional, and social trauma on the minor, citing Supreme Court judgments in X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration. She contended that the minor’s best interests must be interpreted through the lens of her parents’ protective intent and that the 24-week limit under MTP Rules, 2021 should be relaxed in cases of rape. Reliance was placed on Article 21 and the principle of reproductive autonomy.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by the OIC of Medical and Health Secretariat, submitted that the Medical Board’s report conclusively established that termination at 26 weeks posed high risk to both mother and fetus, with potential complications including preterm delivery, respiratory distress syndrome, and maternal hemorrhage. It further emphasized that the minor’s refusal to consent was documented and legally binding under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2021, which requires the woman’s consent as a non-negotiable condition.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the MTP Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, and the Medical Board’s report, which was prepared by qualified obstetricians and gynecologists. The Court noted that the gestational age of 26 weeks 5 days exceeded the statutory ceiling of 24 weeks for termination without court intervention, and that no exception under Rule 3B applied because the minor had not consented.
"Terminating pregnancy at this stage will be of higher risk for both victim and the fetus, whereas continuing pregnancy till term will have a possibility of lesser risk for victim and fetus."
The Court held that the minor’s autonomy over her body is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and that parental wishes cannot substitute for the minor’s informed consent, even in cases of trauma. The Court distinguished this case from those where the minor is incapacitated or unconscious, noting that here, the minor was articulate, coherent, and unequivocal in her refusal.
The Court further emphasized that medical risk assessments by statutory boards are binding and cannot be overridden by humanitarian or social arguments. It rejected the notion that trauma alone justifies breach of statutory limits, stating that the law balances medical safety with individual rights, and that the minor’s choice must be respected as the primary legal fact.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks requires the woman’s consent, which was absent here, and that the Medical Board’s risk assessment is conclusive. The Court, however, directed comprehensive medical care, confidentiality, and compensation for the minor under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Minor's Consent Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now treat the minor’s expressed wish to continue pregnancy as a decisive legal fact, even in rape cases
- Parental consent alone is insufficient under Rule 3B of MTP Rules, 2021
- Courts cannot substitute parental judgment for the minor’s autonomy
Medical Board Opinions Are Binding
- Medical Board reports must be treated as conclusive evidence on gestational risk
- Petitioners cannot rely on emotional narratives to override clinical findings
- Failure to constitute a Board or ignore its opinion renders termination petitions legally unsustainable
Compensation and Care Are Mandatory
- Even when termination is denied, compensation under state victim schemes must be awarded promptly
- Hospitals are obligated to provide free, confidential, and comprehensive prenatal and postnatal care
- Identity protection and FDR-based compensation are now standard directives in such cases
