The consent of a minor's guardian is required for pregnancy termination under the MTP Act, but the minor's autonomy and decision regarding her reproductive choices must be prioritized by the court.

ORDER :

S. SOUNTHAR, J.

The writ petition is filed seeking issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to medically terminate the pregnancy of petitioner's daughter “S” (the name of the girl is not mentioned in order to protect privacy) in accordance with Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is the mother of minor girl “S” aged about 16 years. On 07.01.2025, the petitioner acquired knowledge about the pregnancy of the girl. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that she had an affair with one Dhilip and as a result of intimacy with him, she got pregnant. It is stated by the petitioner that her daughter is a minor girl and in the interest of the child and also upon her wish, she decided to terminate the pregnancy. It is also stated that a criminal case was registered against the above mentioned person in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the first respondent police under Sections 5 (1), 5(j) (ii) r/w Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Since the daughter of the petitioner was anemic, blood transfusion was done to her in Primary Health Centre, Wallajah on 16.01.2025. Since the incharge of the Primary Health Centre expressed inability to carry out Medical Termination of Pregnancy (hereinafter called as MTP for brevity), due to the lack of facility, the petitioner admitted her daughter in second respondent hospital.

3. It is asserted by the petitioner that her daughter is a minor undergoing 12^th standard school education. It is asserted that she wants to terminate the pregnancy and continue her studies. It is also stated that the petitioner's daughter has to attend the board examination for 12^th standard and therefore, there is an urgency for termination of the pregnancy. Since authority in the second respondent hospital informed the petitioner that duration of pregnancy was more than 24 weeks and they would perform MTP only on specific orders from the Court, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, seeking above mentioned direction.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the unwanted pregnancy was imposed on her minor girl due to sexual exploitation by taking advantage of her inability to understand the consequences. It is further stated that in the best interest of the minor girl, the pregnancy shall be terminated. In support of her contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following judgments:

(i) Githa Hariharan and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India and another reported in (1999) 2 SCC 228 ;

(ii) A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327 ;

(iii) N Vs State of NCT of Delhi and others , reported in MANU/DE/6180/2024

5. When the writ petition came up for hearing on23.01.2025, Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) had taken notice for first respondent and Ms.M.Sneha, learned Standing counsel had taken notice for the respondents 2 and 3.

6. Taking into consideration that the duration of the pregnancy is already more than 24 weeks and the urgency, this Court by an order dated 23.01.2025 directed the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 to get a report from second respondent with regard to the feas