Karnataka High Court
Ms X vs State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2025
Author: B.M.Shyam Prasad
Bench: B.M.Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 25408 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Ms X
(THOUGH THE NAME OF THE VICTIM'S MOTHER IS
MENTIONEDIN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE PETITION, IN LIGHT
OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF
BHUPINDER SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
REPORTED IN (2003) 8 SCC 551, THE NAME OF THE VICTIM
'S MOTHER NOT DISCLOSED)
...PETITIONER
(BY Smt. DEEPIKA HUNGENAHALLY.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VANAMALA
N REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: CHIEF SECRETARY
High Court
of VIDHANA SOUDAH
Karnataka AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION
HOUSE OFFICER ANAVATTI PS
SORABA CIRCLE
SHIVAMOGGA - 577413.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES
AUTHORITY BENGALURU
DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX
SHIVAMOGGA 577201
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY.
4. MCGANN TEACHING DISTRICT HOSPITAL
SHIVAMOGGA INSITITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCES
MISSION COMPOUND
SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA - 577201
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDED AND
CHAIRMAN.
5. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE
DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND
CHILD DEVELOPMENT
SHIVAMOGGA KARNATAKA - 577204.
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON.
6. DISTRICT CHILDREN PROTECTION UNIT
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT
100FT ROAD
ALKOLA SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT
CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA., AAG A/W
SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1, R2, R4, R5
AND R6;
SMT. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO TAKE NECESSARY
STEPS TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF THE
PETITIONERS DAUGHTER; B. ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO
PRESERVE THE TERMINATED FOETUS FOR THE
PURPOSE OF DNA TESTING AND ANALYSIS; C. ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 2
TO CONDUCT DNA TEST OF THE TERMINATED FOETUS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.
0921 OF 2024 REGISTERED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.
2 i.e., ANAVATTI PS; D. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND RESPONDENT NO.
4 TO MEET THE ENTIRE EXPENSE OF THE PETITIONER
TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES, COUNSELLING AND
OTHER TREATMENT SHE MIGHT HAVE TO UNDERGO;
E. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO DISBURSE A SUM OF RS.
3,00,000/- (RUPEES THREE LAKH ONLY) TOWARDS
COMPENSATION AS PER THE COMPENSATION SCHEME
FOR WOMEN VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL
ASSAULT/OTHER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a minor is represented by her
mother, and she is a victim of sexual assault with the
investigation still underway. The petitioner, who is
twenty-four weeks and four days into pregnancy as of
this date, seeks direction to the fourth respondent to
ensure that her pregnancy is medically terminated
with further direction to the second respondent [the
Station House Officer] to ensure that foetus in the
womb is subjected to the DNA Test as part of
investigation in Crime No.91/2024.
2. This Court has called for a report from the
Medical Board with the participation of the Member
Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority
[DLSA]. The Medical Board has filed its report after
engagement with the petitioner and her mother, and
the Board’s opinion is that the petitioner has no
emotional attachment to the foetus and that the
petitioner’s pregnancy could be terminated observing
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
that there will be risks even if the pregnancy is
continued to the term. The Member Secretary,
District Legal Services Authority has forwarded a
Special Note, and it transpires from this Note that the
petitioner [and her mother as well] is keen on
termination of the pregnancy also because of the
consequences that could be if the word gets around
that she is in the family way despite being a victim.
3. As of the date of the petition, the
petitioner may have just completed 24 weeks of
pregnancy, and Rule 3B of the Medical Termination
of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 carves out an exception
inter alia for minors who are victims of rape for
termination of pregnancy beyond twenty weeks but
when the decision is for the reasons contemplated
under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 and is based on opinion of medical practitioners
in good faith that continuing the pregnancy could
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of
grave injury to her physical or mental health.
4. On the permissibility in law of medical
termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks
in case of minors when the Medical Board opines in
favour of termination, this Court, without dilation,
must refer to the recent decision of the High Court of
Gujarat in XYZ v. State of Gujarat and another1. The
High Court of Gujarat, to underscore the right of a
woman [even a minor] to make a reproductive choice
and the importance of mental health of the victim
while deciding on the request by a minor rape victim
for medical termination when into pregnancy
beyond twenty-four weeks, has referred to the
decisions of the Apex Court in [i] X v. Principal
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department,
1 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4042
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
Government of NCT of Delhi2, (2023) 9 SCC 433, and
[ii] A Mother of X v. The State of Maharashtra3.
5. In the present case, the Medical Board’s
assessment is that the petitioner, as of 22.08.2025, is
twenty-four weeks and four days into pregnancy, and
the Board’s opinion is that termination could be
allowed because there would be risks even if the
pregnancy is continued to term and that the
petitioner is keen on termination because it could
affect her education and future. The Board’s opinion,
as also the Special note by the DLSA, establishes that
the petitioner proposes to exercise her right to make
a reproductive choice in seeking medical termination
of her pregnancy.
6. This Court opines that the petitioner
should not be denied this right only because she has
exercised that right just a few days closer to the
2 (2023) 9 SCC 433
3 In Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025
HC-KAR
completion of 24 weeks of pregnancy, crucially when
the medical opinion is that she will not be exposed to
imminent peril and the risk will remain even if the
petitioner carries the pregnancy to the term. The
petitioner is a minor and she asserts that she is a
victim of sexual assault. Further, this Court opines
that the second respondent given that the
investigation is pending and that the victim should
not be prejudiced because of the termination, must
ensure that the proper procedure is followed for the
DNA test of the foetus for investigation. Hence the
following:
ORDER
[a] The petition is allowed.
[b] The fourth respondent is directed to ensure
that the victim’s pregnancy is terminated
under all due care and diligence.
[c] The second respondent is directed to take all
such further measures as would be
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:32855
WP No. 25408 of 2025HC-KAR
necessary to ensure that there is a DNA test
for investigation.
[d] The fifth respondent is directed to render all
assistance to the petitioner even post-
termination so that her health is not put to
peril.
Sd/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGENV
[ad_1]
Source link