Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecutrix X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
1 WP-19818-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 9 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 19818 of 2025
PROSECUTRIX X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Swapnil Ganguly - Dy. Advocate General for the State.
ORDER
The instant petition is registered upon the reference made by the
Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hata, Damoh, whereby it is intimated to the
Registrar General of this Court that during trial of Special Case No.2/2025
(State of M.P. Vs. Ram Gopal and Another) registered at Police Station –
Raneh, District – Damoh bearing crime No.134/2022 under Sections 363,
366-A and 376(2)(n) of IPC r/w 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act, the minor victim
aged 16 years has been found to be pregnant and an application on behalf of
the victim has been filed through her mother seeking termination of her
pregnancy.
2. It is also mentioned in the reference letter that as on 09.05.2025 on
medical examination of the victim at Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar,
the fetus is about 23 weeks and 5 days (+- 07 days) and as per the opinion of
the two members Medical Board dated 21.05.2025, since the pregnancy of
the victim is more than 24 weeks and victim being a high risk patient, it
would be appropriate that the process of termination of pregnancy be taken at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
2 WP-19818-2025
the Higher Centre (Medical College, Sagar/Jabalpur).
3. In compliance of the order dated 02.06.2025 passed in the instant
case, the victim and her mother appeared in person through State counsel and
were heard in camera proceedings. During the course of hearing, the victim
and her mother have shown their willingness to terminate the pregnancy.
4 . The Division Bench of this Court I n Reference (SUO MOTU) vs.
The State of M.P. and others , W.P. No.5184/2025, by order dated
20.02.2025 has laid down the procedure for dealing with the cases of
pregnancy of survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest is exceeding 24
weeks:-
(b) 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;
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
3 WP-19818-2025
(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 register 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.
5. Supreme Court considering the right of personal liberty guaranteed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
4 WP-19818-2025
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has held that unmarried woman
has right to decide in respect of the pregnancy.
6. 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 a pregnancy would involveSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:254715 WP-19818-2025
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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:254716 WP-19818-2025
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
7 WP-19818-2025
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
xxxxx
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
8 WP-19818-2025
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 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.
7 . In the matter of A (mother of X) Vs. State of Maharastra & Anr.
2024 SCC OnLine SC 608, Supreme Court granted permission for
termination of pregnancy by order dated 22.04.2024 even when the minor
aged 14 years was in the 30th week of pregnancy, however, subsequently
when the decision was taken by minor and her parents not to put the child at
risk, the Supreme issued certain fresh directions.”
8. The Supreme Court by order dated 29.4.2024 had noted that even
after granting the permission for medical termination of pregnancy by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
9 WP-19818-2025
Supreme Court, the minor victim has shown her willingness to give the birth
to a child. Under that circumstances, the Supreme Court has passed the fresh
order by holding that the decision to terminate the pregnancy is one which a
person takes seriously and the opinion of the pregnant person must be given
primacy in evaluating foreseeable environment of the person under Section
3(3) of MTP Act. The Supreme Court has further held that, if minor pregnant
and her parents are willing to continue with the pregnancy, the same should
be respected. The decision should be taken in light of the decisional and
bodily autonomy of the pregnant person and her parents. The MTP does not
allow any interference with the personal choice of a pregnant person in terms
of proceedings with the termination. The relevant portion of the judgment
reads as under:-
Primacy of the pregnant person’s consent in abortion
32. As noted above, the order of this court allowing ‘X’ to
terminate her pregnancy is recalled. This decision is made in light
of the decisional and bodily autonomy of the pregnant person and
her parents. The MTP Act does not allow any interference with the
personal choice of a pregnant person in terms of proceeding with
the termination. The Act or indeed the jurisprudence around
abortion developed by the courts leave no scope for interference
by the family or the partner of a pregnant person in matters of
reproductive choice.
33. As stated above, the role of the RMPs and the medical
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
10 WP-19818-2025
board must be in a manner which allows the pregnant person to
freely exercise their choice. In the present case, the guardians of
‘X’, namely her parents, have also consented for taking the
pregnancy to term. This is permissible as ‘X’ is a minor and the
consent of the guardian is prescribed under Section 3(4)(a) of the
MTP Act.
34. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. , a three-
judge Bench of this Court has held that the right to make
reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the consent of the pregnant person in matters of
reproductive choices and abortion is paramount. The purport of
this Court’s decision in Suchita Srivastava (supra) was to protect
the right to abortion on a firm footing as an intrinsic element of
the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity as
well as to reaffirm that matters of sexual and reproductive choices
belong to the individual alone. In rejecting the State’s jurisdiction
as the parens patriae of the pregnant person, this Court held that no
entity, even if it is the State, can speak on behalf of a pregnant
person and usurp her consent. The choice to continue pregnancy to
term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the
pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone.
35. In the present case the view of ‘X’ and her parents to
take the pregnancy to term are in tandem. The right to choose and
reproductive freedom is a fundamental right under Article 21 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
11 WP-19818-2025
the Constitution. Therefore, where the opinion of a minor pregnant
person differs from the guardian, the court must regard the view of
the pregnant person as an important factor while deciding the
termination of the pregnancy.
Conclusion
36. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we issue the following
directions:
(i) The Sion hospital shall bear all the expenses in regard to the
hospitalization of the minor over the past week and in respect of her re-
admission to the hospital for delivery as and when she is required to do so;
and
(ii) In the event that the minor and her parents desire to give the child
in adoption after the delivery, the State Government shall take all necessary
steps in accordance with the applicable provisions of law to facilitate this
exercise. This shall not be construed as a direction of this Court binding
either the parents or the minor and the State shall abide by the wishes as
expressed at the appropriate stage.
37. In light of the issues which arose before this Court we record our
conclusions as follows:
(i) The MTP Act protects the RMP and the medical boards when they
form an opinion in good faith as to the termination of pregnancy;
(ii) The medical board, in forming its opinion on the termination of
pregnancies must not restrict itself to the criteria under Section 3(2-B) of theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2547112 WP-19818-2025
MTP Act but must also evaluate the physical and emotional well being of the
pregnant person in terms of the judgment;
(iii) When issuing a clarificatory opinion the medical board must
provide sound and cogent reasons for any change in opinion and
circumstances; and
(iv) The consent of a pregnant person in decisions of reproductive
autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. In case there is a
divergence in the opinion of a pregnant person and her guardian, the opinion
of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration
as an important aspect in enabling the court to arrive at a just conclusion.
9. Reference may be had to the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 which reads as under:-
“3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered
medical practitioners.–
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(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 thisSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:2547113 WP-19818-2025
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 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.”
10. Section 3(2)(a) of the Act permits termination of pregnancy by
registered medical practitioner in cases where length of pregnancy does not
exceed 20 weeks or where it exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24
weeks, if the continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to life of
pregnant woman or grave injury to the physical or mental health.
11. Explanation 2 to Section 3(2)(b) provides that for the purposes of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
14 WP-19818-2025
Clause (a) and (b) where 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.
12. In the instant case, the pregnancy is over 28 weeks and has been
caused on account of the girl being raped. FIR No.134/2022, Police Station
Raneh, District – Damoh under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) and 366A of IPC and
Sections 5(L)/6 of POCSO Act has been registered. In the case in hand, the
victim and her mother have shown their willingness for termination of
pregnancy.
13. Reference may be had to an order of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Victim X vs. Superintendent of Police, dated 09.05.2024 passed in
W.A. No.1078 of 2024 wherein the Coordinate Bench in similar
circumstances has permitted termination of pregnancy where the foetus had
exceeded the age of over 30 weeks.
14. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. This court permits
the termination of pregnancy subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The victim alongwith her parents be immediately referred to the
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur and the copy of the
order be supplied to the Dean of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical
College, Jabalpur for further action.
(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 theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25471
15 WP-19818-2025
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
(vi) A specialised 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. Petition is allowed in the above terms. Copy of the order be
forwarded to the counsel for the State for further action and the copy of the
order be also forwarded to the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Hata, Damoh.
(AMIT SETH)
V. JUDGE
Shruti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHRUTI JHA
Signing time: 10-06-
2025 11:11:36
[ad_1]
Source link