Karnataka High Court
Xxxxx vs State Of Karnataka on 13 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15358
WP No. 8237 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 8237 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. XXXXX
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER,
SMT. JAYASHALINI
W/O SURESH
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 117/7
6TH CROSS, SB GROUP IDEAL
MEADOWS LAYOUT, MARALUKUNTE VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YALAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE CITY-562 149.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANANDITHA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
NAGARAJA B M REPRESENTED BY
Location: HIGH
COURT OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA
THROGUH BAGALUR POLICE STATION
YALAHANKA
BENGALURU CITY - 562 149.
2. BANGALORE MEDICAL COLLEGE
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (BMCRI)/
VICTORIA HOSPITAL
HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT
FORT ROAD, KRISHNA RAJENDRA CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15358
WP No. 8237 of 2026
HC-KAR
3. GENERAL HOSPITAL YELAHANKA
HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU URBAN
KARNATAKA - 560 064.
4. DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT
WELFARE DEPARTMENT COMPLEX
BEHIND KIDWAI HOSPITAL
DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029.
REP. BY DIRECTOR
5. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE/
JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD
CJ AND JMFC COURT COMPLEX
DEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562109.
DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER.
6. DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1, R3 TO R6;
V/O/D 12.03.2026 SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 TO IMMEDIATELY ADMIT THE PETITIONER
AT RESPONDENT NO.2 HOSPITAL AND TAKE ALL STEPS
NECESSARY TO MEDICALLY TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY
FORTHWITH, FOLLOWING THE OPINION OF THE MEDICAL
BOARD CONSTITUTED FOR THIS PURPOSE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15358
WP No. 8237 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of the victim, who is a minor and whose pregnancy is alleged to be the consequence of sexual assault attracting the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
2. Considering the urgency involved and the sensitive nature of the matter, this Court by order dated 10.03.2026 directed respondent No.2-Hospital to constitute a Medical Board comprising specialists in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and other relevant disciplines to examine the victim and submit a report regarding:
(i) the gestational age of the foetus;-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR
(ii) whether termination of pregnancy could be safely undertaken; and
(iii) the risks, if any, to the life and health of the victim.
3. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the Medical Board examined the victim and has submitted its report today. The Medical Board has opined that the pregnancy has reached approximately 34 weeks of gestation, which is well beyond the stage of foetal viability. The Board has further opined that induction for termination at this stage would pose serious risk to the life of the mother and the baby, and therefore termination is not medically advisable.
4. The law relating to termination of pregnancy in India is governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the Medical -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 (for short "the Act").
5. Under Section 3 of the Act, pregnancy may ordinarily be terminated up to 20 weeks on the opinion of one registered medical practitioner and up to 24 weeks on the opinion of two registered medical practitioners for certain categories of women, which include survivors of sexual assault and minors.
6. Section 5 of the Act provides an exception permitting termination beyond the prescribed limit only when such termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.
7. In cases where pregnancy has crossed the statutory limit, constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have entertained petitions seeking termination, primarily based on medical -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR opinion regarding risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman or severe foetal abnormalities.
8. In X v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC 453, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Courts may permit termination beyond the statutory limit where continuation of pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman and the medical report does not disclose any substantial foetal abnormalities.
9. In X v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2506, the Division bench of Delhi High court overturned a single judge's order allowing a 16- year-old survivor of sexual assault to terminate her 26-week pregnancy, and directed her to continue the same till 34 weeks.
10. However, the consistent threat running through the aforesaid decisions is that Courts have relied upon the opinion of competent Medical Boards -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR while deciding whether termination can be safely undertaken. Where the Medical Board has opined that termination would pose serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman, Courts have refrained from permitting such termination.
11. In the present case, the pregnancy has advanced to 34 weeks, which is well beyond the stage of foetal viability. At this stage, the foetus is capable of survival outside the womb with appropriate neonatal care.
12. The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court has categorically opined that induction for termination at this stage would be dangerous to the life of the mother as well as the baby. The same is extracted which reads as under:
"Based on the above examination and opinions Miss X, d/o Suresh, Primigravida with 35+1weeks of gestation for the medical board is of the opinion that patient has already -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR crossed 35 weeks of gestation, she can be allowed to continue till term so that baby maturity will be completed and prematurity of the baby can be avoided. Planning the delivery now or at term will not alter the maternal outcome. However, as the survivor & attenders are not sure about continuing the pregnancy and as the survivor has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (As per psychiatrist opinion). The decision to terminate the pregnancy can be considered depending on survivor & her attenders' decision."
13. In the present case, this Court has carefully examined the report and opinion furnished by the duly constituted Medical Board. The Board, after conducting a detailed medical examination of the victim and assessing the stage of pregnancy, has unequivocally opined that termination of pregnancy at the present stage would pose serious medical risks and would be medically unsafe. The expert opinion indicates that the procedure may endanger the life and health of the minor and therefore cannot be safely undertaken. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR
14. When such a clear and categorical medical opinion is placed on record, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot disregard the expert medical assessment. In the absence of any material indicating that termination can be safely performed, this Court finds no justification to issue a direction for medical termination of pregnancy.
15. Though this Court is deeply conscious of the traumatic circumstances in which the victim has conceived, particularly in view of the alleged sexual assault attracting the provisions of the POCSO Act, the paramount consideration must be the safety and survival of the victim.
16. In view of the advanced gestational age of 34 weeks, the pregnancy has crossed the stage where termination could be medically treated as an abortion
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR procedure. At this stage, medical intervention would essentially amount to preterm delivery, which, as per the Medical Board, carries serious risk to both the mother and the baby.
17. Therefore, this Court finds no justification to issue directions permitting termination of pregnancy contrary to the medical opinion placed on record.
18. Having regard to the peculiar facts of the case and the status of the victim as a minor survivor of sexual assault, the following directions are issued:
(i) The respondent-Hospital shall ensure that the victim receives continuous medical supervision and appropriate antenatal care until delivery.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR
(ii) The respondent-hospital shall take all necessary precautions to ensure safe delivery and neonatal care.
(iii) The Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit shall extend counselling, psychological assistance and rehabilitation support to the victim.
(iv) The State shall ensure that the victim is extended the benefit of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme and other welfare measures available under law.
(v) If the victim or her guardians express inability or unwillingness to raise the child after birth, the Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for care and adoption of the child.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15358 WP No. 8237 of 2026 HC-KAR
(vi) The respondent-hospital shall preserve relevant medical evidence, if required, for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.
(vii) Learned AGA is directed to forthwith communicate this order orally to the concerned respondents.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20