Minor's Signature Alone Not Valid Consent For Medical Termination Of Pregnancy: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a minor's signature, even if genuine, does not constitute valid consent for termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the legislation mandates the written consent of the minor's guardian before a pregnancy can be terminated.The Court observed that even a genuine signature of a minor cannot satisfy the statutory consent requirement under the MTP Act.“The MTP Act does not regard a minor as capable of independently consenting to termination, but the statute itself declares it insufficient,” the Court said, adding that signature of a minor does not supply the consent the MTP Act mandates. The Court further observed that the MTP Act was not enacted to create an “unqualified licence” to terminate pregnancies on demand but only carves out limited circumstances in which termination is legally permissible, subject to strict compliance with the statutory safeguards. It emphasised that for minors, guardian consent is an independent statutory precondition and cannot be substituted by the minor's own assent. “The guardian's written consent is an independent precondition without which the “consent” spoken of by the MTP Act simply does not exist in the eye of law, regardless of how many signatures may appear on a hospital's own consent form,” the Court said.Justice Kaurav made the observations while upholding a trial court order directing further investigation and issuance of summons against a doctor accused of illegally terminating the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor without verifying her age. An FIR was registered in October 2019 alleging that a 16-year-old girl was sexually assaulted and became pregnant. According to the prosecution, the petitioner-doctor terminated the pregnancy at a private medical centre in July 2019 after the victim was brought there by a co-accused posing as her aunt.Initially, the doctor was cited only as a prosecution witness. However, following a protest petition filed by the prosecutrix, the trial court had directed further investigation into whether the abortion had been carried out illegally and whether the doctor knowingly failed to report a POCSO offence. A supplementary chargesheet was later filed against the doctor under Sections 313 and 201 of IPC, Section 21 of the POCSO Act and provisions of the MTP Act. The Court said that a registered medical practitioner performing an invasive procedure that the MTP Act itself conditions on the patient's age is not absolved of the obligation to seek some documentary anchor for that age merely because an escort volunteers a figure. It added that the entire statutory architecture examined presupposes that age is a fact to be ascertained and recorded, not merely accepted on an unverified oral representation from an adult accompanying the patient, particularly where that adult, as later investigation revealed, was not in fact in any relation with the prosecutrix at all.The Court said that the obligations that rest on the registered medical practitioner individually cannot be discharged b the surrounding administrative laxity of the institution in which she practices. It noted that no guardian consent was ever sought in the case because no one at the hospital turned their mind to whether one was required.“In the instant case, the petitioner, who got knowledge regarding the crime on 26.07.2017, failed to inform the same and accordingly registration of the crime was delayed for a period of almost 70 days. That must have attenuated timely investigation of the case without elements of lacuna. The prosecution materials would show that the alleged offence against the petitioner is made out from the prosecution records, warranting trial. Therefore, the quashment plea would necessarily fail,” the judge said. Dismissing the plea, the Court clarified that the observations made were confined to the limited purpose of examining whether a prima facie case exists to sustain the impugned orders and proceedings, and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. “The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial uninfluenced by any observation made herein, and shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence led before it,” it added. Title: DR. POONAM MISHRA v. STATE v. ANRClick here to read order

Minor's Signature Alone Not Valid Consent For Medical Termination Of Pregnancy: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

Minor's Signature Alone Not Valid Consent For Medical Termination Of Pregnancy: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Thapliyal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers