Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecutrix X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2026
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368
1 WP-7768-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 27 th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7768 of 2026
PROSECUTRIX X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Pursuant to the letter addressed to the Registrar General dated 25.02.2026 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. The facts of the case, in substance, are that the prosecutrix a minor girl aged about 14 years (as per Form-D of the report of Medical Board) is a rape victim. During medical examination, the victim was found to be pregnant.
3. It is submitted that the prosecutrix 'X' being a rape victim, is having every right to get the termination of her pregnancy. The report of the Medical Board comprising of HODs of Pediatrics, Radiodiagnosis, General Surgery, Pathology and Obstetrics and Gynecology dated 23.02.2026 is produced before this Court, the relevant extracts thereof read as follows :
// जांच रपोट // आज दनांक 23/02/2026 को जला मे डकल बोड, जय काश जला िच क सालय, भोपाल के ी रोग वशेष ारा माननीय यायालय के िनदशानुसार अिभयो ी का गभ समापन हे तु प अिभगत चाहां गया है ।
इस संबंध म, पूव मे दनांक 21/02/2026 को क गई सोनो ाफ म 24 स ाह 06 दन का Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 2 WP-7768-2026 जी वत गभ पाया गया था।
आज दनांक 23/02/2026 को गभ क अविध 25 स ाह 01 दन पूण हो चुक है . चू ं क, गभ 24 स ाह से अिधक है अतः गभ का िच क सीय समापन (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) Rules, 2021 के िनयम 3A के अंतगत ग ठत बोड क अनुशंसा अनुसार कया जाना चा हऐ।
अतः एम.ट .पी ए ट, 1971 संशोिधत 2001 म धारा 3.2 (c) ारा द श य को योग म लाते हुये मे डकल बोड (गभ का िच क सीय समापन) के गठन संबंधी िनदश दान कये गये है उ िनदश के प रपालन म संचालनालय वा य सेवाय सतपुड़ा भवन, भोपाल के प मांक / विनयमन /2023/76/भोपाल, दनांक 15/02/2023 प मे दये गये अनुसार शासक य िच क सा महा व ालय भोपाल, इं दौर, वािलयर, सागर, जबलपुर, र वा, व दशा, दितया, ख डवा, रतलाम, िशवपुर एवं शहडोल मे मे डकल बोड (गभ का िच क सीय समापन) Medical Board (Medical Termination of Pregancy) का गठन िन न संरचना अनुसार सुिन त कया जाये ...
4. The opinion by the Medical Board dated 27.02.2026 for termination of pregnancy is as under :
"The gestational age of the fetus is more than 24 weeks (as per ultrasound) hence medical termination can not be performed as per MTP act amendment 2021. In case of permission or order of MTP by honorable court such termination can be performed with all the explained risk of anticipated and unanticipated complications related to termination of such high risk teenage pregnancy. Termination of pregnancy at this gestational age and continuation of pregnancy, both, carries risk of complications."
5. There is a bar under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021. For terminating pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, it is 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 clearly indicates that the pregnancy can be terminated subject to certain risks. The risk factors will always be explained to the victim. In the present case, the risk factors has already been explained to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 3 WP-7768-2026 victim and her mother.
6. The relevant provisions under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 which deal with the cases of termination of pregnancy are 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) ...
(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) ...
...
5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply . - (1) The provisions of Section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
7. Regarding the consent, in 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 4 WP-7768-2026 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.
....
3 5 . 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 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.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a series of judgments had an occasion to consider the aspect of termination of pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks and in the case of X vs Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department reported in AIR 2022 SC 4917, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter including the choice of the woman to get the pregnancy terminated and other socio-economic factors including the physical health condition of the woman has permitted for terminating the pregnancy. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 5 WP-7768-2026 aforesaid judgment was again followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of XYZ vs State of Gujarat and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking note of several aspects of the matter has permitted for termination of pregnancy. It has been held as under :
17. More recently, in the case of X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2022 SC 4917; this Court, in another three-judge Bench lead by Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that a woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is warranted, it is equally shared by both the partners. However, in case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health. Article 21 of the Constitution recognizes and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake. Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion.
18. In the context of abortion, the right of dignity entails recognising 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.
19. The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa.
20. In view of the above discussion and on perusal of the latest medical report we permit the appellant to terminate her pregnancy. We direct the appellant to remain present before the KMCRI Hospital, Bharuch, Gujarat during the course of the day, today (21.08.2023) or 09 : 00 A.M. tomorrow (22.08.2023) as she deems fit so that the termination of pregnancy could be carried out preferably during the course of the day today (21.08.2023) or tomorrow i.e. 22.08.2023.Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 6 WP-7768-2026
21. Subsequently to the medical procedure to be carried out either today or tomorrow, in the event, the foetus is found to be alive, the hospital shall give all necessary medical assistance including incubation either in that hospital or any other hospital where incubation facility is available in order to ensure that the foetus survives. Further, in case the foetus survives, then State shall take steps for ensuring that the child could be adopted in accordance with law.
22. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought a direction to the concerned doctors to preserve evidence for subsequent DNA Test Report by drawing tissues from the foetus in order to use it as a piece of evidence in the ensuing trial to be prosecuted by the appellant herein. We direct the concerned medical experts to have regard to the feasibility of such a procedure being done, in the event of the foetus being alive or in the event the foetus not being alive or is still born and accordingly take steps as sought for by the appellant herein.
23. It is needless to observe that in the event tissues are drawn for the purpose of DNA test the same shall be handed over to the investigating agency by the concerned hospital.
24. A copy of this order passed today be handed over to learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State of Gujarat.
25. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
9. If the aforesaid proposition of law is applied to the facts of the present case, then it is seen that the choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone. Further, the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount. Even the MTP Act, particularly clause (4) of Section 3, speaks of the same. As already pointed out hereinabove that clause (4)
(b) of Section 3 of the MTP Act clearly provides for that "... no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman".
10. In the present case, the petitioner is a rape victim. She is carrying pregnancy of more than 24 weeks and has been caused on account of the girl being raped. Her mother gave consent on 22.02.2026 for termination of pregnancy which reads thus :
ववरण Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 7 WP-7768-2026 उपरो गवाहन के सम पी ड़ता क मां *** से पूछा गया क आपक बेट ***** जसके साथ आरोपी ******** ने गलत काम कया है ।
जसक मेड कल रपोट म 24 स ाह 06 दन का गभ होना पाया गया है । या आप अपनी बेट **** का गभपात कराना चहाती हो या नह ं। पी ड़ता क मां ****** ने गभपात कराने क सहमित द जसका गभपात सहमित का पंचनामा तैयार कया गया।
11. The other family aspects are also required to be considered in such cases. Under these circumstances, as the prosecutrix and her parents have shown their willingness for termination of pregnancy and following the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the termination of pregnancy of the prosecutrix who is admitted in the Hospital subject to the following directions :
(i) The procedure of termination of pregnancy will be carried out in the presence of the expert team of doctors as expeditiously as possible latest by tomorrow. The expert doctors will explain to the family members as well as the petitioner (prosecutrix) 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 fetus 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: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:17368 8 WP-7768-2026
(v) All necessary care and caution be taken by the doctors while carrying out the procedure for termination of pregnancy.
(vi) Considering the finding of the Medical Board, the Hospital and its medical team would take care to ensure sensitive treatment and handling of the petitioner in connection with all procedures, whether medical or administrative, keeping her emotional and mental health at the forefront.
12. In above terms, the petition is disposed of finally.
Let a c opy of this order be forwarded to the counsel for the State, Special Judge, Bhopal and Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and the concerning Hospital for further action.
(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE JP Signature Not Verified Signed by: JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Signing time: 27-02-2026 17:43:58