3 weeks ago
Minor's consent not enough for abortion, Delhi High Court rules
A court in Delhi called the Delhi High Court made an important decision about a doctor.
The doctor was accused of ending a 16-year-old girl's pregnancy.
Indian law says a child under 18 cannot say yes to an abortion all by herself.
A grown-up guardian must give permission instead.
The doctor said she did not know the girl was under 18 because the girl said she was 20.
The court said a minor's signature is not enough to make the abortion legal.
The court also said the form doctors must fill should say why the abortion is happening, especially if the pregnancy happened because of a crime.
So the court decided the doctor still has to stand trial.
A trial judge will decide what really happened after hearing all the evidence.
The Delhi High Court refused to cancel criminal proceedings against a doctor accused of terminating a minor's pregnancy without safeguards under the MTP Act.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that a minor cannot independently consent to an abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The court said Form I under the MTP Rules must record reasons for termination, such as pregnancies allegedly resulting from rape.
The survivor, aged 16, was recorded as 20 at medical centres; she later alleged her signatures were forged on medical centre papers.
A supplementary chargesheet was filed against the doctor for alleged violations of the MTP Act, IPC provisions and failure to report under the POCSO Act.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, and a doctor facing criminal proceedings over a minor's abortion.
- What
- The High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the doctor, ruling that a minor cannot independently consent to an abortion under the MTP Act.
- Where
- Delhi High Court, India.
- When
- The High Court order was issued on August 5; the survivor was taken to a medical centre on July 26, 2019, when the pregnancy was detected.
- Why
- The MTP Act requires guardian consent for a minor's termination, and the doctor allegedly failed to follow legal safeguards and reporting requirements under the POCSO Act.
Doctor's Defense
Prosecution and Court
Knowledge of the survivor's minority
Doctor's Defense
The doctor says the survivor, who initially did not accuse her, represented her age as 20 at both medical centres and that she had no knowledge of the survivor's minority.
Prosecution and Court
The court and prosecution say the MTP Act requires guardian consent for a minor and that the doctor's silence about the patient's age can become a punishable failure to report an offence.
Validity of consent and documentation
Doctor's Defense
The doctor's lawyers argued the case was wrongly initiated and there was no evidence she knew the survivor was a minor at the time of termination.
Prosecution and Court
The court held the survivor's physical presence and cooperation cannot substitute for statutory guardian consent, and noted Form I was not completed and no age or identity proof was obtained.
Key facts
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Presiding judge
- Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
- Order date
- August 5
- Survivor's age
- 16, though recorded as 20 at the medical centres
- Pregnancy detected
- July 26, 2019, at six weeks
- Laws cited
- MTP Act, IPC provisions and POCSO Act
- Key finding
- A minor's signature cannot substitute for guardian consent; Form I must record reasons such as rape
- Case status
- Criminal trial against the doctor to continue
Quotes
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Judge of the Delhi High Court
“"The MTP Act does not regard a minor as capable of independently consenting to termination, but the statute itself declares it insufficient."”
indianexpress.com
“"The signature of a minor does not supply the consent the MTP Act mandates."”
indianexpress.com











