Raj HC declines termination of 26-week pregnancy of minor, directs state to ensure medical care, compensation

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit cannot be directed by the Court when expert medical opinion records high risk to both the pregnant minor and the fetus, and where the minor herself has unequivocally refused consent for termination. The Court reaffirmed that while constitutional courts may permit termination in exceptional circumstances, such discretion cannot be exercised contrary to medical board findings, statutory limits under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and the expressed will of the pregnant minor.

The Court further held that where termination is not legally or medically permissible, the State is duty-bound to ensure comprehensive medical care, confidentiality of identity, and payment of compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.

The writ petition was filed by the father of a 16-year-old minor seeking directions for constitution of a medical board and termination of his daughter’s pregnancy. The pregnancy arose out of an alleged offence, for which an FIR under Section 137(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 was registered at Police Station Chechat, Kota Rural.

The minor was medically examined at J.K. Loan Hospital, Kota, where her pregnancy was assessed at around 25 weeks initially. An application for termination was also moved before the Child Welfare Committee. During counselling conducted by the District Legal Services Authority on 21 January 2026, the minor expressly stated that she did not wish to terminate the pregnancy and desired to give birth, while her parents sought termination.

A Medical Board constituted at J.K. Loan Hospital submitted a detailed report dated 22 January 2026, recording the gestational age as approximately 26 weeks and 5 days. The Board opined that termination at this stage would pose a significantly higher risk to both the minor and the fetus, whereas continuation of pregnancy till term carried comparatively lower risk. The Board also noted that under the MTP Act and Rules, termination beyond 24 weeks was not permissible except under court orders and with high-risk consent.

After examining the Medical Board report and counselling records, the Court declined to permit termination of pregnancy. The Court noted that the gestation period had crossed 26 weeks and expert medical opinion unequivocally advised against termination due to serious risks. The Court also placed decisive weight on the fact that the minor had clearly refused consent for termination and wished to continue the pregnancy.

Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that in such circumstances, neither the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 nor the medical evidence supported the relief sought by the petitioner.

While dismissing the prayer for termination, the Court issued a series of directions in the interest of justice. The State and hospital authorities were directed to provide the minor with complete medical care, nutritious food and attendance before and after delivery, entirely free of cost. The Court directed J.K. Loan Hospital to ensure a safe delivery environment and mandated strict confidentiality of the minor’s identity.

The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and the concerned District Legal Services Authority were directed to pay suitable compensation to the minor under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 within three months, with the amount to be kept in a fixed deposit in her name. The Court further directed that the newborn child, if so desired by the victim or her guardian, may be declared free for adoption in accordance with law.

Case title:
Father of Minor v. State of Rajasthan & Others
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1658/2026

Court:
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench

Bench:
Justice Maneesh Sharma

Date of decision:
24 January 2026