India is a country where culture continues to shape societal attitudes, and abortion often remains a taboo subject, particularly for unmarried women. In order to safeguard women’s reproductive rights, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) provides a legal framework permitting abortion in specific circumstances such as medical necessity, cases of rape or incest, or contraceptive failure, within prescribed gestational limits. The 2021 Amendment further liberalized access by extending the upper gestation limit to twenty-four weeks for certain categories of women, including minors, under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules. This change acknowledges that adolescent pregnancies frequently arise from abuse or coercion and require sensitive handling. Importantly, the Act emphasizes a woman’s autonomy and confidentiality in making reproductive choices, as recognized in Section 3, though minors under eighteen require the written consent of a guardian under Section 3(4)(a).
When the provisions of the MTP Act are compared with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a direct conflict emerges. POCSO defines a child as anyone below the age of eighteen and criminalizes all forms of sexual activity with a minor, irrespective of consent. Even consensual relationships between adolescents are classified as penetrative sexual assault. Moreover, Section 19(1) of POCSO imposes a strict duty on all persons, including doctors, to report any information about an offence to the police, with failure to comply punishable under Section 21. In practice, this means that when a pregnant minor seeks an abortion, the doctor is legally required to report it as a case of statutory rape, even if the pregnancy resulted from a consensual adolescent relationship. This obligation directly conflicts with the MTP Act’s guarantee of confidentiality and has the practical effect of deterring medical professionals from providing safe abortion services to minors, pushing many young girls toward unsafe procedures.
The judiciary has attempted to reconcile this tension. In X v. Principal Secretary, Health Department, Delhi (2022), the Supreme Court observed that strict enforcement of reporting requirements would leave minors with the choice of either exposing themselves to criminal proceedings or resorting to unsafe abortions. The Court clarified that while doctors must report the occurrence of a pregnancy in a minor under POCSO, they are not obliged to disclose her identity. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that it could not have been the legislature’s intent to deny minors safe abortions and that balancing reporting obligations with reproductive autonomy required withholding identifying details. Following this, the Bombay High Court, in a case brought by Dr. Nikhil Datar, directed the state government to formulate guidelines ensuring that doctors are not compelled to reveal a minor’s identity when reporting adolescent pregnancies. These judicial directions mark an important step toward protecting the rights of minors, though the law itself still requires clearer articulation.
Despite these clarifications, the statutory framework remains rigid in its approach to consensual adolescent relationships. POCSO’s blanket criminalization inadvertently penalizes situations where both partners are minors acting voluntarily, and this creates fear among young people and medical professionals alike. There is therefore a pressing need for legislative reform, not to weaken child protection, but to distinguish between exploitative abuse and consensual adolescent relationships. The law must evolve in line with social realities, while maintaining its core purpose of protecting children from sexual exploitation.
From a policy perspective, several reforms are necessary. The POCSO Rules should be amended to explicitly codify the Supreme Court’s interpretation that doctors may report adolescent pregnancies without disclosing the minor’s identity. India should also consider introducing a “close-in-age” exemption to prevent the automatic criminalization of consensual relationships between adolescents of comparable age, while continuing to criminalize exploitation and abuse. Police and juvenile justice manuals must be updated to ensure that minors seeking abortions are treated first and foremost as victims in need of protection, rather than as complainants whose identities must be exposed. The medico-legal report prepared by doctors should be treated as sufficient documentation to initiate protective processes, without demanding the minor’s direct statement at the first instance. In cases requiring termination beyond twenty weeks, emergency access should be facilitated to protect the health and dignity of the minor. Regular audits, monitoring, and feedback from doctors, counselors, and adolescents should guide reforms and ensure that privacy violations are penalized, while also improving the system over time.
In conclusion, while the POCSO Act has been invaluable in shielding children from abuse and exploitation, its rigid application in cases of consensual adolescent relationships has produced unintended consequences that clash with the rights protected under the MTP Act. Courts have taken steps to harmonize the two frameworks, but legislative clarity is essential. Protecting minors must not come at the expense of their dignity, privacy, and access to safe medical care. By reforming POCSO to recognize the distinction between consensual adolescent relationships and exploitative conduct, India can create a more balanced legal framework that upholds both child protection and reproductive autonomy.
Author: Yash S Pandit
Juris Centre 