Rajasthan High Court Declines Abortion Plea of 16-Year-Old Rape Survivor, Cites Advanced Pregnancy and Minor’s Wish to Continue.
In a sensitive and complex case involving a 16-year-old girl who was allegedly abducted and sexually assaulted in April 2025, the Rajasthan High Court has refused permission for medical termination of her pregnancy, taking into account the advanced stage of gestation, medical opinion, and the minor’s own stated desire to carry the pregnancy to term.
Justice Maneesh Sharma was hearing a petition filed by the girl’s father, who had sought judicial directions forthe termination of the pregnancy following a medical assessment.
Minor’s Stand Weighed Heavily
The court’s order records that while the parents were in favour of terminating the pregnancy, the minor herself clearly expressed her unwillingness to undergo the procedure during counselling sessions.
The counselling report highlighted what the court described as a “vital aspect” — that the girl wished to give birth despite her parents’ objections.
Medical evaluation revealed that the pregnancy had reached 26 weeks and 5 days, with a margin of approximately one week.
At this stage, doctors informed the court that termination would involve significantly higher medical risks for both the minor and the fetus. Continuing the pregnancy, they indicated, would likely pose a comparatively lower risk.
Medical Opinion Influences Outcome
The medical board’s report, submitted in January 2026, concluded that terminating the pregnancy at such an advanced stage would be hazardous.
Representing the state, Manoj Sharma from the Medical and Health Secretariat placed this assessment before the court.
Given the medical findings and the minor’s refusal to consent to termination, the court declined to permit abortion.
Directions for State Support and Protection
While rejecting the termination request, the High Court issued detailed directions to ensure the minor’s welfare.
The state has been instructed to provide comprehensive care, including proper nutrition, medical supervision, and assistance before and after childbirth.
The hospital concerned must offer all necessary facilities without charging any fees and ensure that the delivery occurs in a safe and secure environment.
The court also emphasised strict confidentiality. The survivor’s identity must remain protected at every stage of treatment and hospitalisation.
Additionally, the order clarified that the survivor or her guardian may choose to place the child for adoption, should they consider it appropriate.
Arguments from Both Sides
Advocate Devyani Rathore, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the 16-year-old survivor, being both a minor and unmarried, would endure severe mental, physical, emotional, and social distress if compelled to continue the pregnancy.
She maintained that forcing the pregnancy to continue could have long-term adverse consequences on the girl’s future.
Rathore invoked provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, along with relevant Supreme Court precedents, urging the court to allow the procedure.
In the alternative, she sought directions for comprehensive state support and adequate compensation.
The state, however, relied primarily on the medical board’s opinion regarding the risks associated with late-stage termination.
The ruling underscores the delicate balance courts must strike between statutory provisions, medical feasibility, parental concerns, and the expressed wishes of a minor in deeply distressing circumstances.
