The Delhi High Court has held that a doctor cannot claim immunity from prosecution for allegedly terminating a minor’s pregnancy without her guardian’s consent merely because an accompanying adult claimed the patient was an adult.
Holding that age verification is a statutory obligation under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in a verdict released on Wednesday, said doctors must exercise due diligence by verifying a patient’s age through documentary evidence or another reliable source before carrying out a medical termination of pregnancy.
The court observed that a doctor who fails to verify the patient’s age and relies solely on an unverified oral declaration, does not merely commit a procedural irregularity, but also undermines the safeguards built into the MTP Act.
“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,” the court said. It added that the statutory framework “presupposes that age is a fact to be ascertained and recorded, not merely accepted on an unverified oral representation.”
The court further held that where a pregnancy of a minor is terminated without obtaining the guardian’s written consent because the doctor failed to ascertain the patient’s true age, the procedure is not protected under the MTP Act. “A practitioner who fails to ascertain age, or who proceeds to terminate a pregnancy on the strength of an orally declared age without any document to support it, does not merely commit a procedural lapse; she disables the very mechanism,” the court observed.
The ruling came while dismissing a petition by a doctor seeking to quash summons issued against her. She faces prosecution for allegedly causing a miscarriage without lawful consent, giving false evidence to shield offenders under the Indian Penal Code, and violating Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Actby failing to report a sexual offence against a child.
The case stems from an FIR lodged by a 16-year-old girl in October 2019 alleging that she had been drugged and sexually assaulted. According to the prosecution, in July 2019 the girl visited a hospital with a co-accused posing as her aunt. After discovering she was about six weeks pregnant, the doctor allegedly referred her to a private clinic, where the pregnancy was terminated. During a subsequent medico-legal examination at AIIMS, the girl claimed her age had been falsely recorded as 20 instead of 16.
In a protest petition filed in 2020, the victim alleged that the doctor conspired with the accused, forged her signatures and illegally terminated the pregnancy. The victim, in a statement, said that she had herself filled an admission slip recording her age as 16, but hospital records reflected it as 20– allegedly at the behest of the doctor. Investigators also alleged that the doctor admitted no proof of identity, residence or age had been obtained and that the mandatory Form I under the MTP Rules had not been completed.
Before the high court, the doctor argued that she had no knowledge the girl was a minor and had been informed she was 20 years old. She contended there was no reason to seek a guardian’s consent as the victim presented herself as an adult and she was herself was present, ambulant, and “cooperative throughout”.
Delhi Police opposed the plea, arguing that the MTP Act expressly requires the consent of a guardian in the case of a minor and that the victim’s cooperation or physical presence could not substitute for this statutory requirement.
Refusing to quash the summons, the high court held that the supplementary chargesheet disclosed sufficient material to proceed against the doctor. It noted that the prosecution specifically alleged the doctor became aware of the victim’s minority from the admission slip before initiating the termination.
The court also underscored the obligation of medical professionals under the Pocso Act to report offences involving minors. “Non-reporting by one professional in a position to have set this apparatus in motion does not merely constitute a technical default; it withholds from a child victim of rape the protection the law specifically intended for her,” the court observed.
