Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ms. X Through Natural Guardian Father … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18491
1 WP-32316-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 21st OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 32316 of 2025
PROSECUTRIX X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the father of the
prosecutrix, seeking permission of this Court for medical termination of
pregnancy of her daughter who is a victim of an offence registered vide
Crime No.335/2025 at Police Station Dehat, District Ashoknagar on
29.07.2025 for commission of offences under Sections 64 (2) (m), 137 (2) of
BNS, 2023, read with Sections 5/6 and 5 (j) (ii) of POCSO Act, 2012.
2 . The age of the prosecutrix is about 17 years. Earlier, vide orders
dated 13.08.2025 and 19.08.2025, the medical report of the daughter of the
petitioner was called. In compliance of the orders dated 13.08.2025 and
19.08.2025, the first report dated 17.08.2025 furnished earlier reveals that the
pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner is of 23 weeks + 6 – 8 days. The
daughter of the petitioner was thereafter examined by a team of medical
experts at G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, Department of Gynecology by a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18491
2 WP-32316-2025
comprising of seven members and a report dated 20.08.2025 has been
produced by the learned counsel for the State wherein, the Competent
Medical Board had opined that upon due examination of the daughter of the
petitioner, the termination of her pregnancy is possible. The communication
dated 20.08.2025 issued from the Department of Gynecology, Gajra Raja
Medical College, Gwalior, is taken on record.
3. Supreme Court considering the right of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has held that
unmarried woman has right to decide in respect of the pregnancy.
4. Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2023) 9
SCC 433, after considering constitutional values animating the interpretation
of MTP Act and the MTP rules dealt with the right to Reproductive
Autonomy of the women and has held as under:-
“64. When interpreting a sub-clause or part of a statutory provision,
the entire section should be read together with different sub-clauses
being a part of an integral whole. [Balasinor Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd.
v. Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606; Madanlal
Fakirchand Dudhediya v. Shree Changdeo Sugar Mills Ltd., 1962
SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1962 Supp (3) SCR 973 : AIR 1962 SC 1543]
In terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, not less than two RMPs
must, in good faith, be of the opinion that the continuation of the
pregnancy of any woman who falls within the ambit of Rule 3-B
would involve : (i) a risk to her life; (ii) grave injury to her physical
health; or (iii) grave injury to her mental health. Alternatively, not
less than two RMPs must, in good faith, be of the opinion that there
is a substantial risk of the child suffering from a serious physical or
mental abnormality, if born. Women who seek to avail of the benefit
under Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules continue to be subject to the
requirements of Section 3 (2) of the MTP Act.
65. One of the grounds on the basis of which termination of
pregnancy may be carried out is when the continuance of aSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:184913 WP-32316-2025
pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the mental health of the
woman. The expression “grave injury to her physical or mental
health” used in Section 3(2) is used in an overarching and all-
encompassing sense. The two Explanations appended to Section 3(2)
provide the circumstances under which the anguish caused by a
pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the
mental health of a woman.
66. Courts in the country have permitted women to terminate their
pregnancies where the length of the pregnancy exceeded twenty
weeks (the outer limit for the termination of the pregnancy in the
unamended MTP Act) by expansively interpreting Section 5, which
permitted RMPs to terminate pregnancies beyond the twenty-week
limit when it was necessary to save the life of the woman. In X v.
Union of India [X v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 458] , Mamta
Verma v. Union of India [Mamta Verma v. Union of India, (2018)
14 SCC 289] , Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India [Meera Santosh
Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462] , Sarmishtha Chakrabortty
v. Union of India [Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India,
(2018) 13 SCC 339] , this Court permitted the termination of post
twenty-week pregnancies after taking into account the risk of grave
injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman by carrying the
pregnancy to term.
67. The grounds for approaching courts differ and include various
reasons such as a change in the circumstances of a woman’s
environment during an ongoing pregnancy, including risk to life, [A
v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 75; X v. Union of India, (2017) 3
SCC 458; Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462;
Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India, (2018) 12 SCC 57; Mamta
Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 289] risk to mental health,
[X v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 458; Meera Santosh Pal v.
Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462; Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v.
Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 339; Mamta Verma v. Union of
India, (2018) 14 SCC 289; Z v. State of Bihar, (2018) 11 SCC 572 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 675] discovery of foetal anomalies, [A v. Union
of India, (2018) 14 SCC 5; Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of
India, (2018) 13 SCC 339; Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India,
(2018) 12 SCC 57; Mamta Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC
289] late discovery of pregnancy in case of minors and women with
disabilities, [X v. Union of India, (2020) 19 SCC 806] and
pregnancies resulting from sexual assault or rape. [Z v. State of
Bihar, (2018) 11 SCC 572 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 675; X v. Union of
India, (2020) 19 SCC 806] These are illustrative situations thrown
up by cases which travel to the court. Although the rulings in these
cases recognised grave physical and mental health harms and theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:184914 WP-32316-2025
violation of the rights of women caused by the denial of the option to
terminate unwanted pregnancies, the relief provided to the individual
petitioner significantly varied.
68. The expression “mental health” has a wide connotation and
means much more than the absence of a mental impairment or a
mental illness. The World Health Organisation defines “mental
health” as a state of “mental well-being that enables people to cope
with the stresses of life, realise their abilities, learn well and work
well, and contribute to their community”. [ World Health
Organisation, “Promoting Mental Health : Concepts,
Emerging Evidence, Practice (Summary Report)” (2004).] The
determination of the status of one’s mental health is located in one’s
self and experiences within one’s environment and social context.
Our understanding of the term “mental health” cannot be confined to
medical terms or medical language, but should be understood in
common parlance. The MTP Act itself recognises the need to look at
the surrounding environment of the woman when interpreting injury
to her health. Section 3(3) states that while interpreting “grave
injury to her physical or mental health”, account may be taken of the
pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.
The consideration of a woman’s “actual or reasonably foreseeable
environment” becomes pertinent, especially when determining the
risk of injury to the mental health of a woman.
xxxxx xx x x x
115. The right to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to
be treated as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value. It means
that every human being possesses dignity merely by being a human,
and can make self-defining and self-determining choices. Dignity
has been recognised as a core component of the right to life and
liberty under Article 21.
116. If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their
pregnancies to term, the State would be stripping them of the right to
determine the immediate and long-term path their lives would take.
Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also
over their lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to
choose for oneself — be it as significant as choosing the course of
one’s life or as mundane as one’s day-to-day activities — forms a
part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under
attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies.
xxxxx xxxxx
122. In the context of abortion, the right to dignity entails
recognizing the competence and authority of every woman to take
reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the
pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18491
5 WP-32316-2025
susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment
imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make
reproductive choices without undue interference from the State is
central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to
reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also
injures the dignity of women.”
5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. This Court permits the
termination of pregnancy subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Since the daughter of the petitioner is already admitted at Kamlaraja
Hospital, Gwalior, the concerned Dean is directed to get the medical
termination of pregnancy of the daughter of the petitioner performed by
following the protocols as stated hereinabove, if possible, by tomorrow.
(ii) The procedure of termination of pregnancy will be carried out in
the presence of the expert team of doctors. The expert doctors will explain to
the family members as well as the petitioner the risk of getting the
termination of her pregnancy and also other factors.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) The doctors will also ensure that a sample from the foetus is
protected for DNA examination and as and when required will be handed
over to the prosecution for using in the criminal case itself.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:18491
6 WP-32316-2025
(vi) A specialized team of Doctors shall take a decision as to when to
terminate the pregnancy. All necessary care and caution shall be taken by the
Doctors while carrying out the procedure for termination of the pregnancy.
Certified copy as per rules.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
AK/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND KUMAR
Signing time: 21-08-2025
17:36:18