Against parents’ will: Why Rajasthan High Court refused 16-year-old’s abortion at 26 weeks

Findings

• The medical report has recorded the gestation period of the minor’s pregnancy as 26 weeks & 5 days +/- 1 week.
• During counselling, the minor girl did not express her consent to terminate her pregnancy and expressed her wish to give birth; however, the parents of the minor expressed their will to terminate the pregnancy.
• The medical officer concerned also informed that terminating the pregnancy at this stage will be of higher risk for both the minor and the fetus, and continuing the pregnancy till term will have the possibility of a lesser risk.
• The state is directed to provide the victim with all necessary care, nutritious food and medical attendance before and after the delivery.

• The hospital concerned is directed to ensure that all medical facilities are made available to the minor before and after delivery, without payment of any fee, charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery takes place in a safe environment.
• The secrecy of the identity of the survivor should be maintained at all stages, and her identity shall not be disclosed in the course of hospitalisation, treatment and admission.
• The survivor or the guardian may decide to put the child up for adoption if it is required.

Arguments

• The petitioner’s counsel, advocate Devyani Rathore, emphasised that the survivor, a minor of age 16 years, is not only a rape victim but also an unmarried girl, and if her pregnancy is not terminated, it will cause her “mental, physical, emotional and social trauma”, which will adversely affect her life.
• Rathore further argued that if the medical termination of pregnancy is not allowed, then the court should direct the state to ensure that all the hospital facilities are available to the minor and a suitable amount of compensation is paid to her.

• She also referred to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and various judgments of the Supreme Court to allow the plea of her client.
• On the contrary, the state was represented by the medical and health secretariat, Manoj Sharma, who submitted a medical board report of January 2026, which suggested that terminating the pregnancy at this stage would be of higher risk for both the victim and the fetus.