Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecutrix X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 June, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
1 WP-21061-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 17th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 21061 of 2025
PROSECUTRIX X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Divyakeerti Bohrey - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.
ORDER
In pursuance to the letter addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice dated
16.06.2025 by Prof. Geeta Guin, Professor and Head Department of OBS
and GYNE, NSCB Medical College and Hospital Jabalpur, seeking
permission for termination of pregnancy of a rape victim who was a minor
aged about 15 years, cognizance was taken and the letter was treated as suo
moto writ petition in pursuance to the directions given under the signatures
of the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice. The writ petition came up for
consideration before this Court.
2. From the perusal of the letter, it is seen that the victim was having six
months pregnancy. The family is very poor and ignorant and after giving
information to the police department the said letter was sent by the Prof. and
Head of the Department addressing the Hon’ble Chief Justice.
3. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing before this Court has
sought information and opinion with respect to termination of pregnancy of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
2 WP-21061-2025
the petitioner. A committee comprising of five doctors was constituted who
were to assess the case of the petitioner. The committee gave its report on
17.06.2025 observing as under :
“The POCSO survivor is 15 years 5 month l6 days on date
17/6/25 as per document (aadhar-card) resident of 00, Jhhamar
district Narsinghpur , 487114 is admitted in the department of
Obstetrics and Gynaccology on 10/06/25.
1. The survivor’s hemoglobin is 9.10 g/dl, TLC-9,75
x103/uL. platelet -299 103/uL, Blood group – “O+ve”
dated 13/06/25. (USG reports Single intrauterine live fetus of
Mean gestational age 29 weeks 6 days with fetal
cardiac activity seen at scan , cephalic, placenta – upper
segment, anterior/ maturity grade Il reviewed by
consultant Radiodiagnosis On 16/06/25.
2. The survivor’s pregnancy is approximately 29 weeks 6
days duration by USG on 16/06/25.
3. Till the point of examination, the survivor does not
have any complication associated with or caused
by pregnancy. Complications in Obstetrics, whether abortion
or labour are probable and unpredictable and many times
unpreventable. The process of abortion is termed as Mini
Labour and hence subject to similar complications as that of
labour at term Continuation of pregnancy can predispose her to
certain complications that tend to occur later in pregnancy and
delivery at term. particularly in teenage pregnancy.
4. The survivor has been interviewed in detail by the
Psychiatrists who is of the opinion that she has no
symptoms suggestive of any major psychiatric disorder.
5. There is an extremely remote possibility that the
pregnancy, if terminated at present, the baby will be born alive
but the chances of survival is very low. If, however the baby
survives, then it can suffer some physical and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
3 WP-21061-2025
mental disabilities. Team of expert committee consisting of
three gynecologists , one radiologist and psychiatrist , after
examining the survivor and reviewing investigation report , we
opine that the survivor’s pregnancy can be terminated
with explained risk and informed consent of the survivor’s
guardian.
4. From the perusal of the report, it is seen that the POCSO survivor is 15
years 05 months and 16 days as on 17.06.2025 and she is having pregnancy
of 29 weeks 6 days as on 16.06.2025. She was interviewed in detail by the
Psychiatrists who is of the opinion that she has no symptoms of suggestive of
any major psychiatric disorder. Further, a remote possibility of baby
surviving was given by the committee. It was specifically pointed out that
chances of surviving baby are very low. However, if the baby survives, then
it can suffer some mental and physical disabilities. But the opinion was that
“the survivor’s pregnancy can be terminated with explained risk and
informed consent of the survivor’s guardian”.
5. The said report along with the other relevant documents are placed on
record by the Deputy Advocate General. The document further contains the
consent given by the father and mother of the victim dated 17.06.2025. It is
pointed out by the learned Deputy Advocate General that FIR was got
registered for offence under Section 64(1) and 64(2)(m) of BNS, 2023 and
under Section 5(i) and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 at crime No.322/2025. The
victim was brought to the hospital by the parents and they are ready to keep
the victim in case the pregnancy is terminated apprehending the social
threats.
6. It is argued by the counsel for the State that Section 3 of the Medical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
4 WP-21061-2025
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 does not permit the pregnancy
exceeding 24 weeks. It is further argued that there are judgment on this issue
which was referred to the Division Bench of this Court in the case of In
Reference (Suo Motu) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others: W.P.
No.5184/2025 which was decided on 20.02.2025 wherein after due
consideration, the SOP has been formed which is required to be followed
upto 24 weeks and exceeding 24 weeks.
7. In the present case, the age of the fetus is exceeding 24 weeks.
Therefore, the SOP is required to be followed in the present case which is as
under:
“SOPs to be followed in case where the age
of foetus/pregnancy of survivor of sexual assault or rape or
incest is exceeding 24 Weeks:-
Whenever a case of rape is registered at any
police station, the following procedure shall be adopted:-
(i) The SHO of the said police station, on the basis of
the MLC of the victim indicating that she is pregnant and
the pregnancy is more than 24 weeks, shall forthwith forward
the victim to the concerned District Court, preferably
Special Judge/POCSO; (ii) The learned Judge of the District
Court preferably Special Judge/POCSO), regardless of any
application for termination of pregnancy, though not
maintainable, filed before it or not, shall refer the victim to the
concerned medical officer/Board to expeditiously submit its
report, if the pregnancy of the victim can be terminated;
(iii) The District Court, preferably Special
Judge/POCSO, after obtaining the said medical report, under
intimation to the victim and her parents, directly refer such
case and report to the nearest Registry of the High Court; (iv)
The Registry of High Court, in turn, shall registerSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:259635 WP-21061-2025
such reference as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, Suo Motu, and list the matter immediately
before the concerned Bench having the roster, so that
appropriate orders regarding termination of pregnancy can be
passed by the High Court without any undue delay;
(v) If directed by the High Court that termination
of pregnancy is required then, 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;
(vi) 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 the victim;
(vii) The post operative care, upto the extent required,
will be extended to the victim;
(viii) The doctors will ensure that a sample from the fetus
is protected for DNA examination and will be handed over to
the prosecution for using in the criminal case.”
8. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State has argued
that the Division Bench of this Court while preparing the SOP has missed to
consider the vital aspect of the matter i.e. the termination of pregnancy after
24 weeks is not permissible. It has further failed to consider the aspect that
fetus is having a life after 6 or 7 weeks and directing for termination of
pregnancy at a delayed stage when the fetus is already alive, will create great
complications and will be having a high risk to the survivor/victim as well as
the fetus alive. Therefore, he has raised objections with respect to
terminating the pregnancy at such an advanced stage wherein the age of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
6 WP-21061-2025
fetus is pointed out to be 29 weeks and 6 days as on 16.06.2025.
9. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971 deals with termination of pregnancy
and the relevant is as under:
“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 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) there is a substantial risk that
if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious
physical or mental abnormality.
Explanation 1.–For the purposes of clause (a), where any
pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method
used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting
the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the
anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
7 WP-21061-2025
woman. Explanation 2.–For the purposes of clauses (a) and
(b), where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to
have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the
pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the
mental health of the pregnant woman.
(2A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner
whose opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at
different gestational age shall be such as may be prescribed by
rules made under this Act.
(2B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length
of the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of
pregnancy by the medical practitioner where such termination
is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal
abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.
(2C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case
may be, shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute
a Board to be called a Medical Board for the purposes of this
Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be
prescribed by rules made under this Act.
(2D) The Medical Board shall consist of the following,
namely:–
(a) a Gynaecologist;
(b) a Paediatrician;
(c) a Radiologist or Sonologist; and
(d) such other number of members as may be notified in the
Official Gazette by the State Government or Union territory, as
the case may be.
(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy
would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned
in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant
woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.
(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the
age of eighteen years, or, who having attained the age ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
8 WP-21061-2025
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.”
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) v. State of
Maharashtra and another : 2024(6) SCC 327 had an occasion to deal with a
similar issue and has held that as under:-
“28. The powers vested under the Constitution in the High
Court and this Court allow them to enforce fundamental rights
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person
approaches the court for permission to terminate a pregnancy,
the courts apply their mind to the case and make a decision to
protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant person.
In doing so the court relies on the opinion of the Medical
Board constituted under the MTP Act for their medical
expertise. The court would thereafter apply their judicial mind
to the opinion of the Medical Board. Therefore, the Medical
Board cannot merely state that the grounds under Section 3(2-
B) of the MTP Act are not met. The exercise of the jurisdiction
of the courts would be affected if they did not have the
advantage of the medical opinion of the board as to the risk
involved to the physical and mental health of the pregnant
person. Therefore, a Medical Board must examine the
pregnant person and opine on the aspect of the risk to their
physical and mental health.
29. The MTP Act has removed the restriction on the length of
the pregnancy for termination in only two instances. Section 5
of the MTP Act prescribes that a pregnancy may be
terminated, regardless of the gestational age, if the medical
practitioner is of the opinion formed in good faith that the
termination is immediately necessary to save the life of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:259639 WP-21061-2025
pregnant person. Section 3(2-B) of the Act stipulates that no
limit shall apply on the length of the pregnancy for terminating
a foetus with substantial abnormalities. The legislation has
made a value judgment in Section 3(2-B) of the Act, that a
substantially abnormal foetus would be more injurious to the
mental and physical health of a woman than any other
circumstance. In this case, the circumstance against which the
provision is comparable is rape of a minor. To deny the same
enabling provision of the law would appear prima facie
unreasonable and arbitrary. The value judgment of the
legislation does not appear to be based on scientific parameters
but rather on a notion that a substantially abnormal foetus will
inflict the most aggravated form of injury to the pregnant
person. This formed the basis for this Court to exercise its
powers and allow the termination of pregnancy in its order
dated 22-4- 2024 [A v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 608] . The provision is arguably suspect on the
ground that it unreasonably alters the autonomy of a person by
classifying a substantially abnormal foetus differently than
instances such as incest or rape. This issue may be examined in
an appropriate proceeding should it become necessary.
30. Moreover, we are conscious of the fact that the decision to
terminate pregnancy is one which a person takes seriously.
The guidelines to terminate pregnancy as well as the scheme of
the MTP Act show the seriousness attached to the well-being
of the pregnant person throughout the process envisaged under
the MTP Act. Change in the opinion of the Medical Board
may cause undue trauma and exertion to a pregnant person
whose mental health is understandably under distress. While
we understand the need for a Medical Board to issue a
clarificatory opinion based on the facts and circumstances of
each case, the board must explain the reasons for the issuance
of the clarification and, in particular, if their opinion has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
10 WP-21061-2025
changed from the earlier report. Pregnant persons seeking
termination of pregnancy seek predictability for their future.
The uncertainty caused by changing opinions of the Medical
Board must therefore balance the distress it would cause to the
pregnant person by providing cogent and sound reasons.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023 (9) SCC
433 had an occasion to consider the constitutional values animating the
interpretation of MTP Act and Rules and with the Right to Reproductive
Autonomy of a woman. The Supreme Court held that the MTP Act is an aid
to interpretation understanding injury to mental health and 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: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2596311 WP-21061-2025
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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2596312 WP-21061-2025
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 75; 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 the
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 interpretingSignature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2596313 WP-21061-2025
“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.”
13. If the aforesaid principles are applied to the present facts and
circumstances of the case it is seen that the survivor is a rape victim. She is a
minor aged about 15 years 5 months and 16 days as on 17.06.2025. The
team of experts consisting of three Gynaecologist, one Radiologist and one
Psychiatrist after examining the survivor have opined that the survivor’s
pregnancy can be terminated with extreme risk and informed consent of the
survivor’s guardian. The risk factor is explained to the victim as well as the
parents and they have given the consent for terminating the pregnancy. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court has permitted for termination of pregnancy in cases
where the fetus have exceeded the age of 30 weeks. The same was followed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Victim X Vs. The
Superintendent of Police Department, Bhopal (W. A. No.1078/2024) decided
on 09.05.2024. In the instance case also the medical experts suggests that the
pregnancy is a high risk pregnancy. There is high risk in both the conditions
i.e. carrying pregnancy to the term and in terminating the pregnancy. The
team of experts has categorically observed that pregnancy if terminated at
present, the baby will be born alive, but chances of survival are very low.
However, if the baby survives then it can suffer some mental or physical
disabilities.
14. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
14 WP-21061-2025
the medical opinion given by the body of experts, this Court deems it
appropriate to allow this petition permitting termination of pregnancy subject
to the following conditions:-
“(i) 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.
(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
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.
(v) 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.”
15. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed and disposed
off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
L.Raj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25963
15 WP-21061-2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 18-06-2025
10:55:32