Prosecutrix X vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

Pursuant to the letter addressed to the Registrar General dated 4.6.2026 as per directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of In reference (suo moto) vs State of M.P. : Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025 decided on 20.02.2025, cognizance was taken and the letter was treated a s suo moto petition. Accordingly, this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court.

The facts of the case, in substance, are that the prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 15 years 1 month, is a rape victim. During medical examination, the victim was found to be pregnant.

It is submitted that the prosecutrix 'X' being a rape victim, is having every right to get the termination of her pregnancy. The report of the Medical Board comprising of HODs of Pediatrics, Radiodiagnosis, General Surgery, Pathology and Obstetrics and Gynecology dated 13.06.2026 is produced before this Court. The opinion by the Medical Board dated 13.06.2026 for termination of pregnancy is as under :

"1. Termination of pregnancy at any gestational age and in this age group is inherently associated with due risk and complications.

Pregnancy may be terminated with the permission of honourable court.

As per USG, fetus is of 11 weeks 6 days gestational age at time of scan and her hemoglobin is 10.5 gm%. Her HPLC report is within normal limits.

The team of doctors comprising Gynecologist, Radiologist, Pediatrician and General surgeon opine for the termination of pregnancy with explained risk. However, health is unpredictable and medical science is known to throw up unforeseen complications."

The report clearly indicates that the pregnancy can be terminated subject to certain risks. The risk factors will always be explained to the victim. In the present case, the risk factors has already been explained to the victim and her mother.

The relevant provisions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 which deal with the cases of termination of pregnancy are as under:

When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,-

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the opinion, formed in good faith, that -

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or (ii) ......

Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply . - (1) The provisions of Section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman."

Regarding the consent, in the case of A vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :

"25. From a perusal of the MTP Act, its Statement of Objects and Reasons as well as the recommendation of the Shah Committee which examined the issue of liberalising abortion laws in India, [Report of the Committee to Study the Question of Legalisation of Abortion, Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Government of India, dated December 1966.] two clear postulates emerge as to the legislative intent of the MTP Act. Firstly, the health of the woman is paramount. This includes the risk avoided from the woman not availing unsafe and illegal methods of abortion. Secondly, disallowing termination does not stop abortions, it only stops safe and accessible abortions. The opinion of the RMP and the Medical Board must balance the legislative mandate of the MTP Act and the fundamental right of the pregnant person seeking a termination of the pregnancy. However, as noticed above and by this Court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi) [X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC 433] the fear of prosecution among RMPs acts as a barrier for pregnant people in accessing safe abortion. Further, since the MTP Act only allows abortion beyond twenty-four weeks if the foetus is diagnosed with substantial abnormalities, the Medical Board opines against termination of pregnancy merely by stating that the threshold under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act is not satisfied. The clarificatory report dated 3-4-2024 fell into this error by denying termination on the ground that the gestational age of the foetus is above twenty-four weeks and there are no congenital abnormalities in the foetus.

....

In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. [Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the right to make reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount. The purport of this Court's decision in Suchita Srivastava [Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570] was to protect the right to abortion on a firm footing as an intrinsic element of the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity as well as to reaffirm that matters of sexual and reproductive choices belong to the individual alone. In rejecting the State's jurisdiction as the parens patriae of the pregnant person, this Court held that no entity, even if it is the State, can speak on behalf of a pregnant person and usurp her consent. The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone.

In the present case, the petitioner is a rape victim. She is carrying pregnancy of 11 weeks 8 days and has been caused on account of the girl being raped. The victim and her mother gave consent on 2.6.2026 for termination of pregnancy which reflects from the communication dated 4.6.2026.

Under these circumstances, as the prosecutrix and her mother have shown their willingness for termination of pregnancy which is reflected from letter dated 4.6.2026, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix subject to the following directions :

(i) The procedure of termination of pregnancy will be carried out in the presence of the expert team of doctors as expeditiously as possible latest by tomorrow. The expert doctors will explain to the family members as well as the petitioner (prosecutrix) the risk of getting the termination of her pregnancy and also other factors.

(ii) Every care and caution will be taken by the doctors while terminating the pregnancy. All medical attention and other medical facilities including that of a presence of a Pediatrician as well as a Radiologist and other required doctors will be made available to her.

(iii) The post operative care up to the extent required, will be extended to the petitioner. It will be the duty of the State Government to take care of the child, if born alive.

(iv) The doctors will also ensure that a sample from the fetus is protected for DNA examination and as and when required will be handed over to the prosecution for using in the criminal case itself.

(v) All necessary care and caution be taken by the doctors while carrying out the procedure for termination of pregnancy.

(vi) Considering the finding of the Medical Board, the Hospital and its medical team would take care to ensure sensitive treatment and handling of the petitioner / prosecutrix in connection with all procedures, whether medical or administrative, keeping her emotional and mental health at the forefront.

In above terms, the petition is disposed of finally.

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the counsel for the State, Special Judge, Mandla and Superintendent of Police, Mandla and the concerning Hospital for further action.