Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosccutirix 'X' vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 November, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58847
1 WP-45091-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 18th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 45091 of 2025
PROSCCUTIRIX 'X'
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aakash Malpani - Panel Lawyer for respondents/State.
ORDER
Pursuant to the letter addressed to the Registrar (J-II) dated 14.11.2025 as per directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of In reference (suo moto) vs State of M.P. : Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025 decided on 20.02.2025, cognizance was taken and the letter was treated as suo moto petition. Accordingly, this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court.
2. Vide order dated 17.11.2025, this Court has observed as under :
As the term of pregnancy is between 30 - 32 weeks and the report of medical Board also shows that there is high risk in termination of pregnancy, both for the child as well as victim and the fetus must be live by now, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Authorities to get the counselling of the victim and the parents done explaining them the risk factor with respect to termination of pregnancy. The Authorities along with a senior lady police officer and a team of Doctors and members from CWC are directed to hold a mediation/counselling of the parents of the victim as well as the victim on the particular aspect that what are the pros & cons if the baby is born alive as the fetus is of 30-32 weeks. They should also ensure the counseling to the effect that in case they do not want to keep the baby, then can the pregnancy be taken to its full and thereafter, after delivering the child, the responsibility will entirely be of State Government to take care of the child in the event they do not want to Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 19-11-2025 14:30:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58847 2 WP-45091-2025 keep the child. The counseling to be done on both aspects and the report be furnished by the State authorities positively by tomorrow i.e. 18.11.2025.
3. Today when the matter is taken up, State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court documents dated 18.11.2025 uploaded in the reference column of ERP which indicates that the parents' victim were provided counselling by the authorities and their statements have been recorded. However, consent of the victim is not reflected therefrom.
4. From the perusal of the report regarding counselling proceedings, it is seen that the same is duly signed by the team consisting of 5 members including officers from Child Welfare Committee, Case Worker, Gynecologist, Civil Surgeon and SDO(P), Kotma wherein it has been decided to perform preterm delivery after two weeks (35 weeks) considering the health condition of the victim and fetus. The extracts thereof reads as under :
WP No.- 45091 of 2025 (PROSCCUTIRIX 'X' VS THE STATE OF MADHYA PPRADESH AND OTHERS) म पा रत आदे श दनांक 17.11.2025 के अनुपालन म आज दनांक 18.11.2025 को ातः 10 बजे जला िच क सालय अनूपपुर म बैठक का आयोजन कया गया, काउं सिलंग बैठक म िन निल खत िनणय िलया गया ह- पी डता क उ 15 वष ह, कद 139 से.मी. ह, वजन 46 क. ा., बी.पी.-120/70 MMHG, यू.एस.जी. रपोट दनांक 10.11.2025 के अनुसार पी डता का गम 30-32 स ाह का गभ ह, रपोट अनुसार आज दनांक 18.11.2025 को 33-34 स ाह का गभ ह, पी डता हाई र क, ट नऐज ेगनशी, छोट हाईट क ह। उ सभी रपोट एवं पी डता क थित को दे खते हुये ट म के ारा उिचत गभाव था क जांच एवं टटनेस टॉ साईड इं जे शन क पहली खुराक लगा द गयी ह. लड टे ट (सी.बी.सी.) क रपोट एवं गभ कालीन आयु को दे खते हुये मां एवं ूण के वा य को दे खते हुये 02 स ाह (35 स ाह) प ात ी टम डलीवर कराने का िनणय िलया गया ह।
नोटः-उपरो काउं सिलंग के दौरान सम त प र थितय से पी डता एवं पी डता के माता- पता को अवगत कराया गया ह, य द नवजात को नह ं रखना चाहते ह तो बाल कलयाण सिमित को दे सकने के ावधान से भी अवगत कराया गया ह।
5. There is a bar under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021 for terminating pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks. It is Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 19-11-2025 14:30:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58847 3 WP-45091-2025 observed that termination can be performed with all the explained risk of the anticipated and unanticipated complications in relation to termination of Rh negative teenage pregnancy (high risk), provided risk of termination is same at this gestation and full term pregnancy. The report as to counselling proceedings clearly indicates that considering the victim's condition, it has been decided to perform preterm delivery after 2 weeks (35 weeks). The risk factors will always be explained to the victim.
6. I n the case of A vs State of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :
"25. From a perusal of the MTP Act, its Statement of Objects and Reasons as well as the recommendation of the Shah Committee which examined the issue of liberalising abortion laws in India, [Report of the Committee to Study the Question of Legalisation of Abortion, Ministry of Health and Family Planning, Government of India, dated December 1966.] two clear postulates emerge as to the legislative intent of the MTP Act. Firstly, the health of the woman is paramount. This includes the risk avoided from the woman not availing unsafe and illegal methods of abortion. Secondly, disallowing termination does not stop abortions, it only stops safe and accessible abortions. The opinion of the RMP and the Medical Board must balance the legislative mandate of the MTP Act and the fundamental right of the pregnant person seeking a termination of the pregnancy. However, as noticed above and by this Court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi) [X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC 433] the fear of prosecution among RMPs acts as a barrier for pregnant people in accessing safe abortion. Further, since the MTP Act only allows abortion beyond twenty-four weeks if the foetus is diagnosed with substantial abnormalities, the Medical Board opines against termination of pregnancy merely by stating that the threshold under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act is not satisfied. The clarificatory report dated 3-4-2024 fell into this error by denying termination on the ground that the gestational age of the foetus is above twenty-four weeks and there are no congenital abnormalities in the foetus.
....
35. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. [Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that the right to make Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 19-11-2025 14:30:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58847 4 WP-45091-2025 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 [Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570] 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.
7. In the present case, the petitioner aged about 15 years is a rape victim. She is carrying pregnancy of 30-32 weeks and has been caused on account of the girl being raped. There is no consent of the victim regarding termination of pregnancy. Her medical condition is not good. The medical experts have opined not to undergo termination of pregnancy rather they have suggested for preterm delivery after two weeks (35 weeks).
8. In view of the report of the Medical Board as well as the counselling proceedings carried out on 18.11.2025 coupled with the fact that consent of the victim is not reflected from the documents filed, this Court is of the view that permission for termination of pregnancy cannot be given. The procedure for preterm delivery will be carried out in the presence of the expert team of doctors. In case the victim and her parents are not ready to keep the child if born alive, then they may hand over the child to the State authorities/CWC after a period of 15 days from the date of his/her birth. The child if born alive will remain with the mother/victim for 15 days from date of birth for the purpose of breast feeding. The CWC will be at liberty to give the child on adoption to any willing family in accordance with law. The State Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 19-11-2025 14:30:04 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:58847 5 WP-45091-2025 authorities are directed to ensure the privacy of the victim and any information including family details should not be published in any form of media which could lead to the identification of the victim. The said directions are being issued looking to the welfare of the child so that his/her upbringing can be taken care of.
9. In above terms, the petition stands disposed of finally.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 19-11-2025 14:30:04