Orissa High Court
X vs State Of Odisha And Ors. …. Opposite … on 3 March, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.5396 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
X .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Arnav Behera, Adv.
Ms. Anikita Mukherji, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Saswat Das, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-28.02.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-03.03.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner’s father seeks a direction from this
Court to the Opposite Parties for convening the Medical Board at
MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, to assess his
daughter’s condition and facilitate the termination of her pregnancy.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
(i) X was born on 12.06.2011 and is currently a 13-year-old studying in the
7th standard. She belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. She
suffers from Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, both of which are
specified disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016.
(ii) In August 2024, X was repeatedly raped by one Dinesh Pradhan, son of
Dhanurjaya Pradhan, from village Takinajum Kanbageri, P.S. G
Udaygiri, District Kandhamal. Due to threats from the accused, she did
not disclose the assault to her parents or anyone else.
(iii) Her health deteriorated, and she experienced irregular menstrual cycles,
body pain, and abdominal pain. Her mother took her to a doctor, who
upon examination, found that she was six months pregnant. The
pregnancy was discovered at a late stage, beyond the 24-week limit
prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
(“MTP Act“).
(iv) On 11.02.2025, X’s mother reported the matter to the police, and an FIR
(PS Case No. 28 of 2025) was registered at G. Udaygiri Police Station,
Kandhamal, under Section(s) 64(2)(m)/65(1)/351(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
(v) A medico-legal examination was conducted on 11.02.2025 by the
Medical Officer, PHC(N) Kalinga, District Kandhamal. The report
confirmed X’s Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy.
(vi) On 13.02.2025, X was examined at DHH, Phulbani, where it was
confirmed that the pregnancy had gestated beyond 24 weeks. X is
currently admitted at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, undergoing
Page 2 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
treatment for her pregnancy and disabilities. There, it was advised that
carrying the pregnancy to full term and giving birth would pose a
serious risk to X’s life due to her:
a) Young age (13 years).
b) Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy.
c) Physical and mental trauma resulting from the rape.
(vii) In the light of the abovementioned circumstances, the petitioner filed
this Writ Petition seeking a direction from this Court to refer X to a
Medical Board constituted at MKCG Medical College & Hospital,
Berhampur, to assess her condition and the risks associated with the
pregnancy and allow the termination of her pregnancy, despite it being
beyond 24 weeks.
(viii) On 25.02.2025, this Court passed an order directing the Medical
Superintendent, MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, to
convene a Medical Board within 3 days to examine the case of X and
submit a detailed prognosis regarding the status of her pregnancy.
(ix) In compliance with the Court’s order, Medical Board was convened.
After a thorough examination, the Board rendered a unanimous
opinion, unequivocally stating that the continuation of the pregnancy
poses a risk of life-threatening complications for X and carrying the
pregnancy to full term would severely impact her physical and mental
well-being. The Board concluded that immediate medical intervention
is necessary to safeguard X’s health and life.
Page 3 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The continuation of the pregnancy poses a threat to X’s life, thereby
violating her fundamental right to life and personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Due to her young age and lack of understanding, X was unaware of her
pregnancy until a very late stage. The pregnancy resulted from rape,
and X did not disclose the assault earlier due to threats from the
accused. Consequently, the pregnancy was discovered only after it had
progressed beyond the 24-week limit prescribed under the MTP Act.
(iii) Carrying the pregnancy to full term and giving birth would endanger
X’s life, as provided under Section 5 of the MTP Act, 1971. It would also
cause grave injury to her physical and mental health as outlined under
Section 3(2)(b)(i) of the Act. The petitioner emphasizes that Explanation
2 of the MTP Act presumes that pregnancies resulting from rape cause
grave mental anguish and trauma to the survivor.
(iv) The petitioner submits that there is a greater likelihood of substantial
fetal abnormalities due to X’s hereditary conditions of Sickle Cell
Anaemia and Epilepsy, as contemplated under Section 3(2B) of the MTP
Act.
(v) The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in X v. Union of
India,1 which clarified that termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks
1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1338.
Page 4 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
is permissible if it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or
if there are substantial fetal abnormalities.
(vi) The petitioner also places reliance on the decision of the Chhattisgarh
High Court in ABC v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2 wherein the Court
allowed the termination of a 28-week pregnancy in the case of a 14-year-
old rape survivor suffering from Sickle Cell Anaemia. The petitioner
submits that the present case is squarely covered by the principles laid
down in the said judgment.
(vii) In light of the above, the petitioner urges this Court to grant the relief
sought for, ensuring that X’s fundamental rights are protected and that
she receives the necessary medical intervention without further delay.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The State Government of Odisha, in full compliance with the statutory
mandate under Section 3(2C) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
(Amendment) Act, 2021, constituted a Medical Board through its
Notification dated 22.12.2022, issued by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to the Government of Odisha.
(ii) In compliance with the directions of this Court dated 25.02.2025, the
Medical Board conducted a thorough examination of the minor victim,
ensuring a meticulous assessment of her medical condition.
2 WP(C) No. 3105 of 2022.
Page 5 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
(iii) The Board rendered a unanimous opinion, unequivocally affirming that
the continuation of the pregnancy poses a risk of life-threatening
complications and would severely impact the minor’s physical and
mental well-being, thereby justifying the necessity for immediate
medical intervention.
(iv) The State, therefore, has no objection to the grant of relief sought by the
Petitioner, as denial would amount to subjecting the minor to severe
physical and psychological trauma, contrary to constitutional principles
and established judicial precedents. Accordingly, the Opp. Parties pray
that this Court may be pleased to allow the writ petition and direct the
medical termination of pregnancy of the minor victim forthwith.
IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
6. At the heart of this dispute lies a profoundly sensitive and urgent
intervention of this Court. This petition was filed by a father seeking
permission for the termination of his daughter’s pregnancy. The
petitioner’s daughter, a 13-year-old minor, was subjected to a grievous
sexual assault resulting in her agonizing pregnancy. The petition
implores this Court to refer her case to the Medical Board at MKCG
Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, and to issue a direction
permitting the medical termination of her pregnancy.
7. In response to this plea, this Court, on 25.12.2025, passed an order
directing the constitution of a Medical Board to assess the minor’s
Page 6 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
condition. The Board, comprising experienced medical professionals,
conducted a meticulous evaluation. Their unanimous and unequivocal
opinion concluded that the continuation of the pregnancy poses a grave
risk of life-threatening complications and would severely impair the
minor’s physical and mental well-being. The Board further emphasized
the necessity of immediate medical intervention to safeguard her health
and life. Now, it falls upon this Court to determine whether the
pregnancy ought to be permitted to proceed or terminated.
8. Now, before delving into the intricacies of the case, this Court must first
turn to the relevant provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act, 1971. Section 3 of the Act lays down the conditions under which
termination is permissible, prescribing both the requisite medical
opinion and the legal framework that must be strictly adhered to. The
relevant excerpts of the said provision are produced below:
“3. 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 subsection (4), a pregnancy
may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,-
(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve
weeks if such medical practitioner is,
or
(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve
weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not lessPage 7 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42than two registered medical practitioners are, of
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) there is a substantial risk that if the child
were born, it would suffer from such physical or
mental abnormalities as to be seriously
handicapped.
Explanation 1.-Where any, pregnancy is alleged by the
pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the
anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the
pregnant woman.
Explanation 2.-Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of
failure of any device or method used by any married woman or
her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children,
the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be
presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of
the pregnant woman.
(3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy
would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned
in subsection (2), account may be taken to the pregnant
woman’s actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.
(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age
of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen
years, is a [mentally ill person], shall be terminated except
with the consent in writing of her guardian.
(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy
shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant
woman.”(Emphasis Supplied)
Page 8 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
9. The abovementioned provisions need to be considered with the
guidelines set by the Supreme Court in X v. Union of India (supra)
regarding the prerequisites for the termination of pregnancy. The
relevant excerpt is produced below:
Length of the pregnancy Requirement for termination
Up to twenty weeks Opinion of one RMP3 in terms of
Section 3(2)
Between twenty and twenty-four Opinion of two RMPs in terms of
weeks Section 3(2) read with Rule 3B.
Beyond twenty-four weeks If the termination is required to
save the life of the pregnant
woman, the opinion of one RMP
in terms of Section 5.
If there are substantial foetal
abnormalities, with the approval
of the Medical Board in terms of
Section 3(2B) read with Rule
3A(a)(i)
10. In light of Section 3 of the MTP Act and the requirements provided in
the aforementioned judicial precedent, it is clear that the present case
squarely falls within the ambit of permissible termination. The
continuation of X’s pregnancy poses a grave risk to her life and would
cause severe injury to her physical and mental health, as confirmed by
the unanimous opinion of the Medical Board. Additionally, the
pregnancy is a result of rape, which, under Explanation 1 to Section
3(2), is presumed to cause grave mental anguish to the survivor.
3 Read: Registered Medical Practitioner
Page 9 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
Furthermore, X’s Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy increases the
likelihood of substantial foetal abnormalities.
11. The principles of law, the weight of precedent, and the dictates of
reason admit no uncertainty and there is no infirmity, whether in
medicine or in law, that bars the medical termination of pregnancy for
X. Yet the case before this Court is not one to be resolved with mere
legal formalism or clinical detachment, for it strikes at the very heart of
human dignity and demands not only the measured reasoning of the
law but the moral clarity of a society unwilling to turn away from its
most vulnerable.
12. A society that views abortion solely through the lens of regulation, fails
to grasp its deeper significance. It is, above all, a matter of individual
conscience of personal liberty, the kind of liberty that a just and
democratic state must not only recognize but actively protect. The right
to make decisions about one’s own body is not a privilege to be granted
at the state’s discretion. It is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, one
that no authority should presume to deny.
13. In a case such as this, the ultimate authority rests with the individual
whose body and future hang in the balance. It is she who must bear the
weight of the decision and it is she who must be afforded the dignity of
choice. It is a fact that in the present case, the individual in question is a
minor, hence, her rights is being exercised by the guardian major. The
role of the medical profession is not to dictate but to guide, to offer
counsel where health is at stake, to intervene where risk arises, but
Page 10 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
never to stand as an obstacle between a person and their right to bodily
autonomy.
14. In the momentous pronouncement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of
India,4 the Supreme Court declared with unwavering clarity that the
right to make reproductive choices finds firm footing within the
constitutionally enshrined guarantees of life and personal liberty under
Article 21. Writing for the plurality, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed
as follows:
“72. The decision in Suchita Srivastava dwells on the
statutory right of a woman under the MTP Act to decide
whether or not to consent to a termination of pregnancy and to
have that right respected where she does not consent to
termination. The statutory recognition of the right is relatable
to the constitutional right to make reproductive choices which
has been held to be an ingredient of personal liberty under
Article 21. The Court deduced the existence of such a right
from a woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily
integrity.”
15. Justice Chandrachud proceeded to expound upon the principle of
decisional autonomy, intrinsically bound to the rights of privacy and
self-determination, and held as follows:
“The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are
all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the
privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to
determine how freedom shall be exercised.”
16. The Court further noted that decisional autonomy encompasses deeply
personal choices, including those concerning reproduction and the right
4 (2017) 10 SCC 1.
Page 11 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
to determine one’s sexual or procreative identity. In a similar vein,
Justice Chelameshwar, in his opinion, asserted with unmistakable
clarity that a “woman’s freedom of choice whether to bear a child or abort her
pregnancy are areas which fall in the realm of privacy.”
17. The question of reproductive rights and abortion is far from uncharted
in the landscape of international jurisprudence. In R v. Morgentaler,5
the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the nation’s federal abortion
law, dismantling the legal barriers that once stood between women and
their right to bodily autonomy. In doing so, the Court not only
decriminalized abortion but placed the responsibility of regulation in
the hands of provinces and medical professionals, where scientific
expertise and individual agency, not punitive statutes, would shape
reproductive healthcare. Framing bodily autonomy as an inalienable
right woven into the fabric of democratic principles, the Court held as
follows:
“It should also be noted, however, that an emphasis on
individual conscience and individual judgment also lies at the
heart of our democratic political tradition. The ability of each
citizen to make free and informed decisions is the absolute
prerequisite for the legitimacy, acceptability, and efficacy of
our system of self-government. It is because of the centrality of
the rights associated with freedom of individual conscience
both to basic beliefs about human worth and dignity and to a
free and democratic political system that American
jurisprudence has emphasized the primacy or “firstness” of the
First Amendment.”
5 1988 SCC OnLine Can SC 4.
Page 12 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
18. The abovementioned precedents make it clear that the principle of
bodily autonomy is foundational to the constitutional guarantee of
personal liberty and human dignity. At its core, respect for bodily
autonomy necessitates minimal state interference in decisions
concerning an individual’s body, particularly in matters as intimate and
consequential as pregnancy. This principle is not diminished in the case
of a minor; rather, it is safeguarded through the role of her legal
guardians, who are best positioned to make decisions in her best
interests. In the present case, the parents of the minor girl, as her natural
guardians and well-wishers, bear the legal and moral responsibility to
act in a manner that ensures her well-being.
19. Ultimately, the role of the court, in cases of pregnancies resulting from
rape, is to intervene in a way that empowers the victim by granting
them the authority to make decisions regarding their own body and
future. In this case, there is a risk of complications in both termination
and delivery. But when the law is faced with two difficult choices, it
must take the path of the lesser evil. Forcing a thirteen-year-old to carry
a pregnancy to term would place an unbearable burden on her body
and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing.
While termination is not without risk, it prevents the far graver
consequences of childbirth and forced motherhood at an age where
such responsibilities are unthinkable.
20. Although the Court has intervened to render a decision in this case, it
cannot overlook the deeply troubling aspect inherent in cases of this
nature, the unwarranted reliance on judicial intervention where the law
Page 13 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
itself provides a clear and unambiguous course of action. The
consequence is an undue burden placed upon those in crisis, forcing
them to navigate legal complexities where none should exist. The
urgency inherent in the termination of pregnancy, particularly in the
case of a sexual assault victim, brooks no unnecessary delay. Here, time
is not a passive measure but an active force and each moment lost bears
its own weight in consequence.
21. The report confirming X’s pregnancy was issued on 13.02.2025; today,
we stand at 03.03.2025. A delay of more than two weeks in a matter,
where time is the arbiter of both possibility and peril, is unwarranted.
This delay did not arise from the natural course of justice but from a
failure to direct the case immediately to the Medical Board. Only upon
the order of this Court was the Board apprised of the issue, and only
then was the requisite report submitted.
22. The Supreme Court, in X v. Union of India (Supra), has laid down clear
precepts: where the gestational period surpasses 24 weeks, the matter
must be referred to the Medical Board. The necessity of approaching
this Court could have been obviated had the matter been referred to the
Medical Board at the outset, rather than awaiting judicial intervention
to set the process in motion.
23. The seriousness of the matter before this Court is undeniably profound.
Whether driven by fear of reprisal or an abundance of caution in the
face of potential criminal liability, many health service providers
hesitate to act within the bounds of their professional and legal
authority. Instead, they force patients to seek court approval for what is
Page 14 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
fundamentally a medical decision, one that should be guided by
expertise and necessity, not burdened by procedural uncertainty.
24. The issue at hand found fitting adjudication in X v. State of
Maharashtra,6 where the Bombay High Court was confronted with a
case in which the petitioner’s pregnancy had advanced beyond 24
weeks. The Court, in its deliberation, noted with concern that rather
than directing the matter to the Medical Board for an opinion grounded
in medical examination, the District General Hospital, whether through
oversight or ignorance, counselled the petitioner to seek recourse before
the judiciary. In light of these considerations, the Court deemed it
necessary to direct the Department of Public Health and the
Department of Medical to establish a comprehensive Standard
Operating Procedure. The relevant excerpts of this judgment are
produced below:
“10. It appears that the petitioner approached the General
Hospital, Wardha where the doctor who attended the petitioner
was of the tentative opinion that though the petitioner is
carrying pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks, but there is
risk to the child, if born. In such circumstances, in accordance
with the legal provisions as discussed above, the matter/case
ought to have been referred to such Medical Board instead of
suggesting her to approach this Court for seeking permission
for termination of her pregnancy.
11. The aforesaid facts call upon us to direct the Department of
Public Health and the Department of Medical Education and
Drugs of the State of Maharashtra to a formulate Standard
Operating Procedure (SOP) which shall be issued to all6 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1663.
Page 15 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42government hospitals and medical colleges in the State of
Maharashtra. The said Standard Operating Procedure shall be
prepared by the experts in the field and shall accordingly be
notified and circulated amongst all concerned.”
25. To subject a victim and her family to prolonged legal formalities is to
impose a burden that extends beyond the courtroom, adding to their
distress rather than alleviating it. When legal processes become
unnecessarily complex and unyielding, they risk creating additional
hardship for those already in a vulnerable position. The law, at its best,
serves as a shield of protection, but when applied without sensitivity, it
can become an obstacle rather than a source of relief. At its core, this is
not merely a question of policy or procedural compliance but one of
principle.
26. A working paper titled Legal Barriers to Accessing Safe Abortion Services in
India: A Fact-Finding Study7 published by the NLSIU, Bengaluru, offers a
compelling insight into the ground realities faced by women seeking
access to abortion services. Chapter 4 of the working paper titled
“Consent and Documentation Requirements as Barriers to Abortion Services”
examines the unwarranted imposition of judicial authorization on
patients, highlighting how such requirements create unnecessary
obstacles to accessing abortion services.
27. In the paper, they have highlighted the case of R, an adult woman
whose pregnancy was a result of rape. She had a severe developmental
7A. Chandra, M. Satish, S. Shree, M. Saxena, ‘Legal Barriers to Accessing Safe Abortion Services in
India: A Fact Finding Study’ (2021) National Law School of India University, Bengaluru,
<https://www.nls.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Legal-Barriers-to-Accessing-Safe-Abortion-
Services-in-India.pdf> accessed 1st March 2025.
Page 16 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
disability and was around 17-18 weeks pregnant when her family came
to know of her pregnancy. Both R and her family expressed their
unequivocal desire to terminate the pregnancy. However, the service
providers at a major government hospital in Chennai declined to
proceed with the termination without judicial authorization, insisting
on a “certificate” from a court. The lawyer representing R before the
Madras High Court submitted that the service providers maintained
their stance despite the absence of any medical impediment to the
procedure. The service providers stated that:
“[The doctors] said that, ‘there is no medical reason but we
always want a judicial confirmation of some kind. In most of
these cases, even if it is rape, later the families will do some
kind of compromise get victim married off to the perpetrator
then they will come and ask us why did you abort. We will be
answerable.”
28. It was further submitted that the doctors harboured apprehensions of
being subjected to reprisals or facing questions from external parties
regarding the termination of pregnancy. The lawyer representing R
made assurance to the service providers that there existed a clear
consent form and that no liability would attach to them. However, the
service providers expressed reluctance, citing social pressures from
families. As stated, “They were just being risk averse”.
29. The case of R is not an isolated occurrence but part of a discernible
pattern that manifests in numerous instances, including the present one.
The apprehension harboured by service providers is not born of legal
necessity but of an unspoken anxiety, a spectre of liability that looms
larger in perception than in law. This fear stems from an incomplete
Page 17 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
understanding of the law, a gap in knowledge that turns discretion into
inaction and duty into doubt. Shedding light on this issue, the paper
made the following observation:
“Section 3 (2) (b) (ii) of the MTP Act presumes that rape
causes “grave injury” to the mental health of the pregnant
woman, and consequently permits termination on that
ground. However, providers seek judicial authorisation prior
to terminating a pregnancy out of a fear of backlash from the
pregnant woman’s partner or family. They are also
apprehensive of being dragged into criminal proceedings if the
woman is a rape victim. A senior gynaecologist in Chennai
stated that “a court order [was] required for all MTP cases
where the pregnancy [was] an outcome of rape.” Judicial
authorisation may also be insisted on in “special cases” such
as those where the woman is “psychologically” unstable.…..
Although in such cases a permission for termination of
pregnancy is usually granted the extralegal requirement
of judicial authorisation, and the consequent delay in
termination of a pregnancy, causes significant physical
and mental agony to women. For rape victims, this
prolongs the trauma of sexual violence.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. The case before this Court is no different from the one mentioned
above. Here, a thirteen-year-old child, still developing her
understanding of the world, has endured the unimaginable; the
violation of her body, the crushing of her spirit, and the burden of an
unwanted pregnancy she never chose. It is a tragedy that defies
comprehension, a failure of protection so profound that it must awaken
the conscience of all who encounter it. Having failed to prevent this
Page 18 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
calamity, the system must now rise to the occasion with both
compassion and efficiency.
31. Where time is of the essence, the machinery of justice must recognize its
own limits. The courts exist to correct injustice, not to impose delays
where none are warranted. Intervention is justified only when a failure
of the system threatens to deny what should be freely granted. To insist
upon judicial oversight in every instance is to misunderstand the very
purpose of the law. It is not meant to stand in the way of fundamental
rights but to clear the path for them.
32. In such circumstances, the duty of the State is both evident and
imperative. It must close the gap in legal understanding that renders
healthcare providers hesitant, uncertain, and reluctant in the fulfilment
of their obligations. The fear of backlash must not be allowed to dictate
the course of medical care. It is not enough to offer assurances; what is
required is a deliberate and unwavering commitment to legal clarity
and institutional confidence. The Patients and the healthcare providers
cannot be left to navigate a maze of red tape that serves no purpose but
to obstruct, delay, and deter. In the domain of essential reproductive
healthcare, neither the fear of litigation nor the burdens of cumbersome
formalities may cast doubt upon the rights and the law, in its reasoned
justice, has affirmed.
33. In light of the foregoing, this Court issues the following directions to the
Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, for the
formulation and implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure
concerning the medical termination of pregnancy:
Page 19 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42
a) The Health and Family Welfare Department shall develop a
comprehensive SOP for medical termination of pregnancy,
ensuring adherence to the pre-requisites established in X v. Union
of India (Supra).
b) The SOP shall be drafted in consultation with medical experts
specializing in obstetrics, gynaecology, and reproductive health,
alongside legal professionals well-versed in medical
jurisprudence.
c) Upon finalization, the SOP shall be formally notified and
disseminated to all Government and Private Healthcare
Institutions across the State.
d) The SOP should ensure a smooth and timely process for medical
termination of pregnancy, removing avoidable delays and
preventing the patient from facing unnecessary bureaucracy or
drawn-out legal struggles.
e) Recognizing the emotional and psychological impact of such
cases, the concerned authorities shall ensure that psychological
counselling services are made available to the patient. In cases
involving minors, a qualified child psychologist shall be engaged
to provide appropriate support.
f) The Health and Family Welfare Department shall periodically
review the implementation of the SOP and take necessary
corrective measures to address any procedural inefficiency.
g) The Police Stations need to be sensitized by way of issuing proper
directions/ instructions to immediately rope in the District Legal
Page 20 of 21
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Mar-2025 15:04:42Service Authority/ Para-Legal Volunteers available nearer to them
so that any kind of legal assistance can be easily provided to the
victims of rape who bear the brunt of pregnancy.
h) Any other guidelines, the Department may issue considering their
experience and expertise on this issue.
V. CONCLUSION
34. In light of the legal framework, the medical opinion, and the
fundamental rights at stake, this Court finds no justification to deny the
Petitioner’s plea. The law is not meant to stand in the way of dignity
and justice but to uphold them. The medical termination of pregnancy
in this case is not only legally permissible but also morally imperative.
35. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the concerned
authorities are directed to ensure the procedure is carried out without
further delay or obstruction.
36. The concerned Department is further directed to take necessary steps
for the formulation of the aforementioned SOP, ensuring its completion
within six months from the date of this judgment.
37. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 3rd March, 2025/
Page 21 of 21
