Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated in his order on Wednesday that a medical practitioner cannot rely solely on the oral assertion of a patient’s age while carrying out a medical termination of pregnancy.
| Photo Credit: file photo
The Delhi High Court has declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings against a doctor for “illegally” terminating a 16-year-old girl’s six-week pregnancy and failing to report the matter to the authorities.In his order on Wednesday, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stated that a medical practitioner cannot rely solely on the oral assertion of a patient’s age while carrying out a medical termination of pregnancy. The court underscored that under the law, age has to be “ascertained and recorded”, and “not merely accepted on an unverified oral representation”.The court held that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act provides that a minor is incapable of independently consenting to termination and her pregnancy cannot be medically terminated without the guardian’s consent in writing.“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,” read the judgment.The petitioner had approached the High Court challenging a September 2020 order by a trial court directing further investigation into whether the doctor terminated the pregnancy while knowing the girl was a minor and then consciously did not report the matter to the police.According to the prosecution, the survivor stated that in July 2019, a co-accused posing as her aunt informed hospital authorities that the pregnancy was the result of her relationship with her boyfriend and falsely disclosed her age as 20 years.In the judgment, the court observed that the petitioner became aware of the minor’s age at the time of the termination procedure itself, and the FIR under the POCSO Act was registered only 70 days after the termination due to the petitioner’s failure to report it.Noting that at the time of admission, no identity proof and no residential proof of any kind were obtained at the hospital, the court concluded that the alleged offence against the petitioner was made out from the prosecution records, warranting trial. Published - August 07, 2026 12:48 am IST
