Uttarakhand High Court
Simran Kaur vs State Of Uttarakhand And Ors on 4 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025
Simran Kaur ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Ors. .....Respondent
Presence:
Mr. Vikas Anand, learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Manisha Rana Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State
of Uttarakhand.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
The petitioner, Ms. Simran Kaur, aged about 22 years and
resident of Sarasariya, District Udham Singh Nagar, is a rape survivor.
She alleges that one Roshan Singh, son of Gurvel Singh, developed a
relationship with her over a period of several years under the false
pretext of marriage, during which he repeatedly subjected her to non-
consensual sexual acts.
2. As per the FIR No. 84 of 2025, registered on 21.04.2025 at P.S.
Nanakmatta, District Udham Singh Nagar, the petitioner stated that in
February 2025, the accused established forcible physical relations with
her near Pratappur Road temple. The petitioner later discovered that she
had become pregnant.
3. Upon being informed of the pregnancy, the accused disclosed that
he was already married and had children. He allegedly coerced the
petitioner to consume abortion pills on 19.04.2025, further aggravating
her physical and mental trauma.
1
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
4. Following the lodging of the FIR, the petitioner underwent a
medical examination at the Sub-District Hospital, Bazpur, where the
ultrasound confirmed the pregnancy.
5. The petitioner and her family orally requested the hospital
authorities to medically terminate the pregnancy. However, the request
was denied, citing apprehension of criminal liability on the part of the
medical staff.
6. The petitioner subsequently submitted written representations
dated 09.05.2025 and 14.05.2025 to the Chief Medical Officer, Bazpur,
and other authorities including the District Magistrate and police
officers. These representations were not acted upon.
7. The petitioner states that she belongs to a socio-economically
disadvantaged family; her father is physically disabled, and the family
lacks resources to raise a child. She submits that continuing with the
pregnancy will cause grave mental agony, social ostracism, and severe
emotional trauma, particularly as the child was conceived through rape.
8. Left with no efficacious alternative, the petitioner has approached
this Court seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy
and protection against criminal prosecution of her or the medical
practitioners involved.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case falls
squarely within the ambit of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended), which permits
termination up to 24 weeks in cases where the pregnancy is alleged to
have been caused by rape. It was submitted that in terms of Explanation
2 to the said provision, the mental anguish resulting from rape is
statutorily presumed to amount to grave injury to mental health,
obviating the need for further subjective medical certification of
psychological harm.
10. It was argued that the refusal by the hospital to undertake
termination, despite the pregnancy being well within the statutory limit,
2
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
amounts to a denial of the petitioner’s rights under the Act and
unnecessarily forces her to approach this Court. The apprehension of
criminal liability entertained by the medical staff was stated to be
misplaced in view of the statutory protection available under Section
3(1) and Section 8 of the MTP Act.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner prays for a direction to the concerned
authorities to permit and facilitate medical termination of her
pregnancy without delay and to ensure that no criminal action is taken
against her or any medical practitioner involved in the procedure.
12. Learned counsel for the State submitted that, if the termination
poses a risk to the Petitioner, then it should not be permitted.
13. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the records.
14. The present case lies at the confluence of statutory protections
under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended),
and the fundamental right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and
reproductive choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
15. The petitioner, a young unmarried woman aged 22 years, alleges
that she became pregnant as a result of rape committed under the false
pretext of marriage. FIR No. 84 of 2025, registered under Section 376
IPC, lends factual support to her claim. The medical record before this
Court reflects that the petitioner was 21 weeks and 5 days pregnant as
on 19 June 2025. She is now 23 weeks and 4 days pregnant as of the
date of this order.
16. The petitioner’s repeated requests for medical termination of her
pregnancy, made to healthcare and administrative authorities, went
unaddressed. She has now approached this Court, not only in pursuit of
legal remedy but in search of institutional compassion, dignity, and
recognition of her right to choose.
17. Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971, as amended by Act 8 of 2021, allows termination of pregnancy
3
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
exceeding 20 weeks but not exceeding 24 weeks for certain categories
of women, including rape survivors. Explanation 2 to this provision
creates a statutory presumption that where a woman alleges that the
pregnancy was caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy
shall be deemed to constitute grave injury to her mental health. This
provision, read harmoniously with the object and purpose of the Act,
places the woman’s experience at the heart of the legal inquiry.
18. The petitioner, by her lived reality, her documented trauma, and
her expressed unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy, squarely
falls within the protective umbrella of this provision. She is not merely
a statistical category or a legal subject, but a person who has already
endured immense psychological suffering. For such a woman, the
continuation of an unwanted pregnancy is not just a medical issue, it is
an extension of the original trauma, a daily reminder of violation, and a
barrier to healing.
19. In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 10 SCC 489, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that the right to reproductive
autonomy is inseparable from the right to personal liberty under Article
21. The Court observed:
“A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an
inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. Denying an unmarried woman the right to
medically terminate a pregnancy within the framework of
the Act is violative of her constitutional rights.”
20. The Court further clarified that the words “such category of
woman as may be prescribed” must be interpreted expansively to
include unmarried women, rape survivors, and others similarly situated.
21. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9
SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised:
4
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
“There is no doubt that a woman’s right to make
reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21. It is important to recognise that
reproductive autonomy is closely linked to bodily integrity and
decisional privacy.”
22. In the present case, the petitioner is not only a survivor of assault
but also a woman from a socio-economically disadvantaged
background. Her father is physically disabled, and she has stated
that she lacks both familial support and economic means to raise
a child. Her plea before this Court is not an act of defiance, but
one of desperation, guided by a reasoned understanding of her
own circumstances. The law must not turn away from such a
voice.
23. The Court is acutely conscious that with each passing day, the
window of legal permissibility under the statute narrows. The
closer a pregnancy approaches the 24-week threshold, the more
pressing is the need for judicial responsiveness and medical
urgency. Delay at this stage may not only frustrate the statutory
scheme, but also inflict irreversible emotional and physical
consequences upon the petitioner.
24. In X (supra), the Supreme Court underscored that statutory
interpretation must be informed by constitutional values. The
Court held that where ambiguity exists, interpretation must favour
the dignity, autonomy, and agency of the woman.
25. Though the MTP Act does not mandatorily require the
constitution of a Medical Board for pregnancies below 24 weeks,
it is well recognised that where gestation has significantly
advanced and medical complexity increases, judicial prudence
warrants such a step. Doing so ensures not only the petitioner’s
safety but also procedural fairness, institutional accountability,
and clarity in case of future challenge.
5
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
26. In view of the above, this Court finds that the petitioner has
made out a compelling case for the termination of her pregnancy
within the legal framework of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act.
Her decision is informed, sincere, and grounded in lived
suffering. This Court cannot be a mute spectator to her continuing
trauma, nor should the law be wielded as an instrument to
compound her pain.
27. In view of the foregoing, and to ensure medical safety, procedural
compliance, and preservation of the petitioner’s dignity,
autonomy, and statutory rights, the following directions are
issued:
a) The Medical Board shall:
• Examine the petitioner within 24 hours of this order,
• Evaluate her physical and mental health,
• Assess whether continuation of pregnancy poses a risk of
grave injury to her physical or mental health, and
• Determine whether the pregnancy can be safely terminated at
its current gestational stage.
b) If the Board opines in favour of termination, the same shall be
carried out at a Government Hospital or institution authorised under
the MTP Act, preferably within 48 hours, with due medical
safeguards and psychological support.
c) The consent of the petitioner shall be duly recorded in writing.
The medical team shall maintain strict confidentiality and submit a
sealed compliance report before this Court.
d) No criminal action shall be taken against the petitioner, any
family member, or the medical practitioners concerned, in respect of
any acts done in compliance with this order, by virtue of the
6
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.
protection granted under Section 8 of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971.
e) Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned Standing
Counsel for the State forthwith, who shall ensure that it reaches the
Chief Medical Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar, for immediate
compliance.
28. List this matter on 11.07.2025 for report of compliance by the
Medical Board.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
04.07.2025
SB
7
Criminal Writ Petition No. 566 of 2025, Simran KaurVs State of Uttarakhand and Ors –
Ashish Naithani J.