Pregnant Minor's Refusal to Terminate Prevails Over Guardian's Consent Under MTP Act: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, the mother of a minor girl, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to terminate her daughter's pregnancy under Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, alleging that it resulted from rape (paras 1, 2.1-2.2). A Medical Board reported that the pregnancy could be terminated with the usual risks of the procedure and of teenage pregnancy (paras 3-3.1). In a consent memo the minor stated that she was not willing to terminate the pregnancy (para 3.2). The mother relied on Section 3(4)(a), under which a guardian consents for a minor, and on risks to her daughter's health (paras 4.2, 4.4-4.5).

The Court framed two questions: whether a natural guardian's consent to terminate a minor's pregnancy can be accepted when the minor herself does not agree, and whether her right to life under Article 21 includes the right to beget a life (para 6). It found the daughter, though a minor, sufficiently mature to take the decision and understand its consequences; her wish to raise the child showed she understood the social and economic factors involved (paras 6.2-6.3). Ignoring her consent would amount to forcible termination, causing grave mental and physical trauma (para 6.6). Section 3(4)(a) requires a guardian's consent but does not address a divergence between the minor and the guardian; it suits the case where the minor wants a termination (para 6.7). Relying on A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and decisions of the Chhattisgarh and Madras High Courts, the Court held that the minor has a right to beget a life under Article 21 and that the pregnant woman's consent prevails over her guardian's (paras 6.4-6.5, 6.8, 6.10-6.12). The medical report did not indicate grave physical injury if she continued the pregnancy (para 6.9).