[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ms. Teeja Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan … on 19 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:27568]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11932/2025
Ms. Teeja Devi W/o Shri Hariram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Haru
Ram, Rawo Ki Dhani Tehsil Khinvsar (Panchori), District Nagaur
(Raj.) (At Present Triveni Nagar Sangariya, Vivek Vihar, Jodhpur
City West (Raj.))
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Jodhpur.
3. The Superintendent, Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG
with Mr. Pawan Bhari
Mr. N.S Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. Shersingh Rathore, AAAG
Ms. Rakhi Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
(VACATION JUDGE)
Order
REPORTABLE
19/06/2025
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking
direction to terminate the pregnancy of her minor daughter viz.
Mst. “S” (Aged 17 years 5 months-minor), victim of rape, under
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (2 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]
Sections 3 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
(hereinafter to be referred as ‘the MTP Act‘).
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for
disposal of the instant writ petition are as under :-
2.1. The petitioner/mother lodged a complaint stating that her
minor daughter Mst. “S” left the house on 12.01.2025 without
informing anyone with one Dinesh Kumar. Thereafter, the police
lodged a complaint under Section 137 (2) of the BNS and after
investigation the police secured both of them from Jodhpur.
2.2. Accused Dinesh Kumar was arrested and produced before
the court. The petitioner’s minor daughter was sent for medical
examination and her UPT test report came positive. The petitioner
alleged that her minor daughter was made pregnant on account of
rape committed by accused Dinesh Kumar and therefore, it is
requested to refer the petitioner’s daughter to the government
hospital (Respondent no. 3) in order to get the pregnancy
terminated. So this writ of mandamus has been filed.
3. On 13.06.2025, this Court has passed the following order:
”1…….
2. On perusal of the report it indicates that medical board
have suggested that pregnancy can be terminated under usual
risk of the procedure and teenage pregnancy risk.
3. After considering said medical report this court deems it
appropriate to seek specific report from the medical board as
to whether Ms. ‘S’ is physically fit to undertake the procedure
of termination of pregnancy and other surgery.”
3.1. In compliance of aforesaid order, the Medical Board
submitted a report dated 14.06.2025, in which, it is mentioned
that : ”According to the ultrasound Obstetrics Ms. ‘S’ is having
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (3 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]
pregnancy of 22 weeks 3 days. As per USG, single live fetus of 22
weeks 3 days. The pregnancy can be terminated with usual risk of
the procedure and teenage pregnancy.” Thus, it is observed that
the critical period of twenty weeks, before which alone there can
be safe abortion was over.
3.2. According to the consent memo dated 05.06.2025 of
minor victim (Annexure-8) enclosed with the petition, the minor
girl has categorically stated that she is not willing to abort the
fetus.
3.3. The victim Mst. ‘S’ in her statement to police has stated
that the pregnancy resulted out of consensual intercourse between
her and accused Dinesh Kumar and not out of coercion.
4. In continuation of the facts as averred in the writ petition,
the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as
under :-
4.1. It is contended that the daughter of petitioner is minor
and she is incapable of making informed decisions about her body
and health and the continuance of the pregnancy would lead to
various social, economic and cultural factors which would possibly
the victim could not reasonably forsee.
4.2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that consent of minor rape-victim is not mandatory for
medical termination of pregnancy, the consent of guardian is
sufficient. It is submitted that the Section 3(4) of the MTP Act
clearly states that the pregnancy of a minor or a mentally ill
person can be terminated with the consent in writing of her
guardian and second ”otherwise” the pregnancy can be
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (4 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]terminated with the consent of pregnant women herself. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of Mst. ‘S’
falls under the first category i.e. Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in her submission
stated that the judgment dated 29.04.2024 relied upon by the
respondent rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of
A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharastra [Civil Appeal
No.5194/2024], wherein it is stated that the consent of the
pregnant women must be taken into consideration as an
‘important factor’; however, such condition is not explicitly
required. It is further contented that the above judgment also
states that the court must apply their mind to the case and make
a decision protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant
women.
4.4. It is also submitted that the victim is currently admitted at
the Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur and her condition is very critical as
her hemoglobin was only 9 at the time of medical examination,
therefore, she is not in a position, physically and mentally, to give
birth to a child.
4.5. It is further contended that the Section 3(2)(i) of the MTP
Act provides for medical termination of the pregnancy in case
where the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to
the life of the pregnant women or of grave injury physical or
mental health, which is the current condition of the victim.
4.6. It is further contended that in the case of Gopal Lal &
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10687/2025], a Coordinate Bench of this Court while
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (5 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]allowing for medical termination of pregnancy also mentioned
that : “the further procedure has to be done in an expeditious
manner as soon as possible and the committee shall consider the
guardian since the victim is suffering from mental illness.” When
the condition of mentally ill person is considered then the
condition of minor is also bound to be consider as per Section 3(4)
of the MTP Act.
4.7. It is submitted that in the case of Kishan Lal Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors [S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.17830/2024] as well as Nisha Vaishnav Vs. State of
Rajsthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1271/2019], the
Coordinate Benches of this Court granted permission for
termination of pregnancy on the request of the natural guardian of
the victim and considering the risk associated with full term
pregnancy and delivery.
4.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that
if the medical termination of pregnancy is not allowed then the
State shall ensure that all the hospital facilities are made available
to the victim and a suitable amount of compensation shall be paid
to the petitioner and her daughter under the provision of the
Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
5. Per contra, AAG and Asst. to AAG appearing on behalf of
the respondent authorities has submitted following arguments :-
5.1. It is contended that the minor girl has shown absolute
unwillingness to abort the fetus being aware that she would be
solely responsible for the upbringing of the child.
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (6 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]
5.2. It is submitted that in the case of A (Mother of X)
(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically stated that
the MTP Act does not allow any interference by the partner or
family with the personal choice of a pregnant person and the view
of the pregnant person must be considered as an important factor
in case of divergence view of the minor and the parent/guardian
while proceeding with the termination of the pregnancy.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after
perusing the material available on record, the fundamental
question arose before this Court are that :-
• Whether the consent of natural guardian for termination
of pregnancy of minor daughter can be accepted when the
pregnant minor daughter herself is not agreeable for such
termination?;
• Whether the minor daughter’s right to life under Article 21
of the Constitution of India includes the right to beget a
life or create a life?
6.1. The minor daughter of the petitioner left her home on
12.01.2025 along with her relevant document and an amount of
Rs.50,000/- without informing anyone with one Dinesh Kumar.
While going through the factual report, it has come to this Court’s
notice that the victim and the accused knew each other since last
9 years and had thus voluntarily ran away in the year 2023.
Subsequent to which, the present petitioner filed a case, wherein
after 3 months, they were secured by the police and the accused
was sent to jail; however, in January 2025, when the accused was
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (7 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]
out on bail, again they voluntarily ran away from Jodhpur and
were having a conjugal relationship with each other since then.
6.2. Considering the written submission and arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the parties whether the
consent of minor rape-victim is mandatory or not for termination
of pregnancy and whether the consent of guardian is sufficient for
the same, this Court is of the opinion that though the daughter of
the petitioner is minor (17 years 5 months) but she is a
sufficiently mature girl capable of taking decision and further
capable of understanding the consequence of the decision taken.
6.3. Perused the material available on record the minor victim
has showed her unwillingness that she doesn’t want to abort the
fetus and that she is willing to raise the child on her own, reflects
that she clearly understands all the social and economical factors
associated with raising a child.
6.4. This Court has relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court rendered in A (Mother of X) (supra), wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has stated that :-
“32. ….. The MTP Act does not allow any interference with the
personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding
with the termination. The Act or indeed the jurisprudence
around abortion developed by the courts leave no scope for
interference by the family or the partner of a pregnant person
in matters of reproductive choice.
33…..
34…..
35. In the present case the view of ‘X’ and her parents to take
the pregnancy to term are in tandem. The right to choose and
reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Constitution. Therefore, where the opinion of a minor
pregnant person differs from the guardian, the court must(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (8 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]regard the view of the pregnant person as an important factor
while deciding the termination of the pregnancy.”
6.5. This Court further perused the judgment dated
17.03.2020 rendered by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at
Bilaspur in the case of Ram Avatar Vs. State of Chattisgarh &
Ors. [Writ Petition (Cr.) No.164/2020], wherein the minor girl
in her statement to the lady police officer had shown her
unwillingness to abort the child the court stated that :-
”28. On a careful perusal of the above statement of the minor
girl, it is quite vivid that though the minor (17 years 8 months
10 days), but is a sufficiently matured girl capable of taking
decision and further capable of understanding the
consequence of the decision taken, and taking her
unwillingness and further considering the medical opinion that
she is having the advanced stage of pregnancy exceeding 27
weeks and as per the medical advice termination may put girls
health in danger due to excessive bleeding and risk of death,
her right to beget a life and/or create a life, which is a facet of
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court is not inclined to direct termination of her
pregnancy, even otherwise such a direction for want of her
consent would amount to forcible termination of pregnancy. As
such, the request of the petitioner father to terminate the
pregnancy of his daughter is hereby rejected and accordingly,
the writ petition is dismissed….”6.6. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the minor
victim has sufficient level of understanding the consequences of
her actions and if her consent is ignored completely then this
would lead to forceable termination of her pregnancy which would
cause grave mental and physical trauma to her.
6.7. This Court is of the view that the Section 3(4)(a) of the
MTP Act provides for taking consent of natural guardian for
termination of pregnancy, however, the said act does not shed the
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (9 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]light on a situation where there is a divergence in the view of
minor and her guardian, therefore, this leaves plethora of gates
open for interpretation by the Court as per the facts and
circumstances of the case. Also, the provision of aforesaid section
suitably applies to the situation where pregnant minor wants to
terminate her pregnancy, it is provided that no termination of
pregnancy can take place without the consent of natural guardian.
6.8. This Court is of further opinion that the minor victim has
the right to beget a life and/or create a life, which is a facet of
Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
6.9. After taking into consideration the points raised regarding
the condition of the minor victim that she is not in a condition to
deliver the child, this Court is of the opinion that nowhere in the
medical report it indicates that the minor victim would suffer grave
physical injury in case she keeps and deliver the child as per her
free own will.
6.10. This Court while going through the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has formed an opinion
that none of the cited judgments are on the similar footing from
that of the present case. This Court relied on the judgment dated
28.08.2009 rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suchita
Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration [Civil
Appeal No.5845/2009 (Arising out of SLP (C)
No.17985/2009)], wherein it is stated that the right to make
reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution,
further the consent of the pregnant women in matter of
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (10 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]reproductive choices and abortion is paramount and no entity,
even if it is state, can speak on behalf of pregnant person and
usurp her consent. The choice to continue the pregnancy to term,
regardless of the Court having allowed termination of the
pregnancy belongs to individual alone, has held as under :-
“11….There is no doubt that a woman’s right to
make reproductive choices is also a dimension of
`personal liberty’ as understood under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise
that reproductive choices can be exercised to
procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The
crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to
privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be
respected. This means that there should be no
restriction whatsoever on the exercise of
reproductive choices such as a woman’s right to
refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively
the insistence on use of contraceptive methods.
Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth-
control methods such as undergoing sterilisation
procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion,
reproductive rights include a woman’s entitlement to
carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and
to subsequently raise children. However, in the case
of pregnant women there is also a `compelling state
interest’ in protecting the life of the prospective
child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is
only permitted when the conditions specified in the
applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the
provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed
as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on
the exercise of reproductive choices. 9. As evident
from its literal description, the `Best interests’ test
requires the Court to ascertain the course of action(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (11 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]which would serve the best interests of the person in
question. In the present setting this means that the
Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the
medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy
as well as social circumstances faced by the victim.
It is important to note that the Court’s decision
should be guided by the interests of the victim alone
and not those of other stakeholders such as
guardians or society in general. It is evident that the
woman in question will need care and assistance
which will in turn entail some costs. However, that
cannot be a ground for denying the exercise of
reproductive rights.”6.11. This Court further perused the judgment dated
19.09.2016 rendered by the High Court of Madras at Madurai
Bench in Marimuthu Vs. The Inspector of Police & Ors. [Writ
Petition (MD) No.12212/2016], wherein the Court stated that
pregnant women has the autonomy to decide what to do with their
own bodies which also includes right to beget a life or to retain or
terminate the pregnancy and has held as under :-
”39. The right to autonomy to the woman and to decide what
to do with their own bodies, including whether or not to get
pregnant, and if pregnant whether to retain the pregnancy
and to delivery the child, i.e. the right to motherhood is
towards their empowerment and it is in accordance with the
International Covenant on Human Rights. Considering the
right to life, which includes the right to beget a life and the
right to dignity, the right to autonomy and bodily integrity, the
foetus cannot be ordered to be aborted against the wishes of
the victim girl.
40. Whether the foetus carried is a pain or pleasure is the
subjective opinion of the minor girl and the girl has formed an
opinion that it is the total delight, when India has ratified the
conventions on the rights of the Child and when the consent of
the victim girl cannot be dispensed with while aborting(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (12 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]pregnancy, this Court has no option except to decline
permission to terminate pregnancy, leaving it open the
question, who is to bear the cross?
41. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.”
6.12. While considering the above mentioned judgments this
Court is of the opinion that the pregnant woman has the
autonomy over her body and it is only she who has right to choose
whether or not to terminate the pregnancy. Subsequently, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suchita (supra) has not
allowed to terminate the pregnancy while considering the
willingness of a mentally retarded women to keep the child.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that since the daughter of
the present petitioner is unwilling to abort the child, therefore, the
consent of the pregnant women prevails over the consent given by
her guardian.
6.13. In the light of statement of the minor victim, above
mentioned reasoning, the judgments of other High Courts as well
as Hon’ble the Apex Court referred above, this Court deems it
proper to disposed of the present writ of mandamus while
upholding right of pregnant minor victim to retain her pregnancy.
7. With these observations, the instant writ petition is
disposed of with the directions to the State Authorities that all the
medical expenses of the minor pregnant victim shall be borne by
the State government and she shall be provided with the proper
medical facilities for her delivery. It is further directed to the
Rajasthan State Legal Service Authority (RLSA) and the District
Legal Service Authority (DLSA), Jodhpur to pay suitable amount of
(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27568] (13 of 13) [CW-11932/2025]compensation to the daughter of the petitioner under the provision
of Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
8. No order as to cost.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),VJ
Abhishek Kumar
Sr.No.250(Downloaded on 20/06/2025 at 11:01:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link