Minor Girl Has Autonomy To Decide If She Wants To Continue With Pregnancy Or Not: Madras HC Permits Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy

Upasana Sajeev

29 Jan 2025 8:10 AM

  • Minor Girl Has Autonomy To Decide If She Wants To Continue With Pregnancy Or Not: Madras HC Permits Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy

    While allowing a minor girl's mother's application to permit termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court observed that the minor girl, who was 16 years old had domain over her body and had the autonomy to make a decision regarding continuing her pregnancy or otherwise. Noting that the minor had clearly mentioned her willingness to terminate the pregnancy, Justice S...

    While allowing a minor girl's mother's application to permit termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Madras High Court observed that the minor girl, who was 16 years old had domain over her body and had the autonomy to make a decision regarding continuing her pregnancy or otherwise.

    Noting that the minor had clearly mentioned her willingness to terminate the pregnancy, Justice S Sounthar observed that while deciding cases of this nature, consideration must be in the interest of the minor. The court added that since the medical termination is concerned with the body of the minor girl, her wish should be given primary importance.

    While deciding the case like this, paramount consideration shall be the interest of the minor. Further, medical termination of pregnancy is a procedure which is concerned with the body of the minor girl. Therefore, primacy shall be given to the wish of the girl. The minor girl has got domain over her body and also got autonomy in taking a decision with regard to the continuance or otherwise of the pregnancy. The said right is the essential part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court observed.

    The court was hearing a mother's plea seeking directions to the Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Vellore Medical College, to terminate her daughter's pregnancy. The mother informed the court that her daughter was impregnated by a person with whom the daughter had an affair. Following this, a case was registered against the person Sections 5(1), 5(j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the same was pending. Now, considering the well-being and wishes of the minor, a medical termination of pregnancy was sought. However, since the pregnancy was more than 24 weeks, the hospital informed the mother that a court order was necessary.

    The mother informed the court that the pregnancy was due to the sexual exploitation of her daughter by taking advantage of her inability to understand the consequences. She added that her daughter was studying in Class 12 and had to attend board exams and in her best interest, the pregnancy had to be terminated.

    The court also asked the magistrate to visit the minor girl and ascertain her wish. The Magistrate submitted a report informing that the minor girl also wished to terminate the pregnancy. The Hospital and the Health Department, upon court's instructions, also informed that the there were no significant contra indication to proceed with the pregnancy.

    The court noted that in the present case, the mother was the sole breadwinner of the family and was responsible for the up-keeping of her children. Thus, the court opined that the mother could be treated as a guardian of the minor girl for the purpose of the Act which mandated a written consent of the guardian under Section 3(4) for termination of pregnancy of a minor.

    Thus, noting that the victim had expressed her desire to medically terminate the pregnancy and the mother, who was the guardian for the purpose of the Act had also consented to the same, the court was inclined to allow the plea and directed the Medical College to terminate the pregnancy and complete the procedure as expeditiously as possible.

    Considering the pendency of the POCSO case, the court also directed the medical team to preserve the fetus for carrying out the DNA or other medical test and allowed the Inspector to use the same for the investigation. The court also directed that the statement of the minor girl to the Magistrate be kept in a sealed cover by the Registrar (Judicial) for a period of 1 year and to later preserve the same along with the case records.

    Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Deepika Murali

    Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. .L. Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.side), M/s. Sneha Standing counsel

    Case Title: XX v. The Inspector of Police

    Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 30

    Case No: W.P.No.2237 of 2025


    Next Story