Chattisgarh High Court
Xyz (Details In Closed Envelop) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 April, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:18090
NAFR
Digitally signed by
AJAY KUMAR
DWIVEDI
DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH
COURT, o=HIGH
COURT OF
CHHATTISGARH,
st=Chhattisgarh,
c=IN
Date: 2026.04.21
16:52:23 +0530
WPC No. 1800 of 2026
Xyz (Details In Closed Envelop) Nil
... Petitioner.
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Public Health And
Welfare Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
2 - Station House Officer, P.S. Sarona District- Uttar Bastar , Kanker (C.G.)
3 - Chief Medical Officer Government Medical College (MCH) Albelapara
District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)
4 - Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre (PHC), Sarona District- Uttar
Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)
5 - Government Komal Dev District Hospital Kanker (C.G.) Department Of
Radio Dignosis District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.)
6 - Consultant Radiologist Late Smt. Indira Gandhi Memorial Govt. Medical
College Cum Komal Dev District Hospital Kanker District- Uttar Bastar, Kanker
(C.G.)
... Respondents.
(cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery)
For Petitioner : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocate (Legal Aid)
For Res/State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate.
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Order on Board
21.04.2026
2
1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner, a 28-year-old woman said to be mentally
challenged and a victim of sexual exploitation, through her sister-in-law
(Bhabhi), praying for the termination of the petitioner's pregnancy under
the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in
brevity, the 'Act 1971').
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per FIR bearing Crime
No.13/2026 registered at Police Station Sarona, District Kanker on
30.03.2026 for offences under Sections 64(2)(k), 64(2)(m), and 351(3)
of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the victim (Petitioner) was sexually
exploited by the accused, which resulted in her pregnancy of 19 weeks
and 4 days as on 27.03.2026. The aforesaid report has been lodged by the
sister-in-law (Bhabhi) of the victim.
3. Learned counsel further submits that, because of the aforesaid sexual
exploitation, as on 17.04.2026 she is carrying a pregnancy of 23 weeks
and 3 days, which has been reported by a doctor in the medical
examination. Learned counsel further submits that the pregnancy may be
detrimental to the life of the petitioner and may also have significant
physical, emotional, social, and economic consequences to her. Therefore,
she does not want to carry on the pregnancy or deliver the child, as such,
she has filed the instant petition through her sister-in-law seeking
permission of this Court for the termination of her pregnancy.
4. On being report sought for by this court on the earlier date of hearing, a
Medical Team of 8 doctors of Office of Joint Director cum Hospital
Superintendent, Late Smt. Indira Gandhi Memorial, Government Medical
College affiliated Komaldev Hospital, District North Bastar Kanker (CG)
3
(hereinafter referred to as the "Government Hospital Komaldev"), vide
report dated 18.04.2026, has reported that the victim is carrying
pregnancy of 23 weeks and 3 days as on 17.04.2026. Learned State
counsel has submitted the aforesaid report today itself, wherein the
following point-wise report has been prepared:
"Point No. 1: Examination report regarding the physical and
mental condition of the patient--
The examination reports regarding the physical and mental
condition of the patient are attached in a total of 06 pages.
Point No. 2: Stage of pregnancy--
The victim is currently in the second trimester of pregnancy. As
per the sonography conducted on 17.04.2026, the victim is 23
weeks and 03 days pregnant. In the medical examination, the
victim was found to be 24 weeks pregnant. Therefore, the
duration of pregnancy found in the sonography and medical
examination is approximately the same.
Point No. 3: How harmful would an abortion be for the petitioner
--
Since the victim is in the second trimester of pregnancy, during an abortion, there may be a need for Hysterotomy (surgical removal of the fetus from the uterus) in case of excessive bleeding (Haemorrhage), uterine injury, infection, cervical injury, or if the abortion medication is ineffective. All the above complications can be life-threatening for the victim.
Point No. 4: Can continuing the pregnancy pose a threat to the life of the pregnant woman or cause serious harm to her physical or mental health--
Continuing the pregnancy may lead to pregnancy-related complications for the victim, such as high blood pressure (Preeclampsia), premature delivery (Preterm), etc. Delivery- related complications such as Cesarean Section, excessive bleeding (Haemorrhage), etc., may occur. The victim's mental health may be further damaged after delivery.
4
Point No. 5: If the child is born, can it suffer from any serious physical or mental problem--
The victim is currently 24 weeks pregnant and is mentally unwell. Necessary medicines were not consumed by the victim during the early stages of pregnancy, and the required prenatal check-ups (Antenatal check up) were not performed during the pregnancy. Therefore, the child to be born may have physical and mental problems.
Point No. 6: Investigation Report--
Investigation reports are attached in a total of 07 pages."
5. Perusal of the aforesaid medical report shows that a Medical Team has opined that the petitioner is carrying pregnancy of 23 weeks and 3 days as on 17.04.2026. It has also been reported by the Medical Team that necessary medicines were not consumed by the victim during the early stages of pregnancy, and the required prenatal check-ups (Antenatal check up) were also not performed during the pregnancy, therefore, the child to be born may have physical and mental problems.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner was sexually exploited, she has conceived, but she does not want to carry on her pregnancy, as stated by her sister-in-law (Bhabhi). Therefore, it may be presumed that if permission is not granted, it would cause grave injury to the mental and physical health of the petitioner who herself is mentally challenged woman, as such, the relief sought may be granted to her.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including medical report submitted by a Medical Team of doctors Government Hospital Komaldev.
8. Issue involved in the instant case is seeking permission for termination of pregnancy, which is governed by the provisions of the Medical Termination 5 of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (henceforth referred to as "Act, 1971"). Section 3 of the Act, 1971 provides for termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioner under the circumstances, as has been envisaged therein, which is reproduced 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."
[ In section 3 of the principal Act, for sub-section (2), the following sub-sections have been substituted vide Amendment Act, 2021, No. 8. of 2021] "(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. 6 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.
(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.".7
(3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in subsection (2), account may be taken to the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.
(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of 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."
9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evidently clear that the termination of pregnancy is not impermissible, rather, it is permissible in the given circumstances as envisaged under Section 3 of the Act, 1971. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to be a mentally challenged woman who is a victim of sexual exploitation. As per the statement of her sister- in-law, she does not want to carry on her pregnancy and deliver the child. A team of doctors has reported that the gestational age is 23 weeks and 3 days as on 17.04.2026. It has also been reported that necessary medicines were not consumed by the victim during the early stages of pregnancy, and the required prenatal check-ups (antenatal care) were not performed, therefore, the child, if born, may have physical and mental problems.
10. Having considered the aforesaid facts as stated above, it cannot be denied that the continuation of pregnancy can lead to complications at a later stage on both counts i.e. the physical condition of the victim and also the psychological and mental condition of the foetus. 8
11. This Court in WPC No. 270/2018 (Ku. Pooja Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 02.02.2018 in paragraph No. 23 in a similar situation allowing the writ petition has held as under:
"23. Taking into consideration the entire facts including her age (13 years) and circumstances what has been stated by the victim, her gestational age, judicial precedents, taking into consideration her adolescent pregnancy and risk involved in childbirth, medical condition of the victim / petitioner, as she is suffering anemia and sickle cell (trait), considering the fact that the fetus if allowed to born, would have a limited life span with serious handicaps, and that as per Explanation I appended to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1971 mental agony of a rape victim (petitioner) has to be treated as a case of grave injury, particularly taking into consideration that it is in the best interests of the victim alone which has to be kept in view and considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1971 and Explanation I that the termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of a pregnant girl like the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to direct that a team of five doctors shall consider the feasibility of termination of pregnancy at this gestational age. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed......."
12. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case and further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "A v. Union of India" [2018 (14) SCC 75] and also "Sarmishtha Chakraborthy and Another v. Union of India" [2018 (13) SCC 339] permitted termination of pregnancy at the stage where the victim was carrying pregnancy for around 26 weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India and others" [2017 SCC Online 1092"], considering the fact that the victim of rape must be given that much of 9 liberty and right to decide whether she should continue with the pregnancy or she should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy.
13. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of "A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors." [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 160] has observed that the Court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so that would be more traumatic for her. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred various judgments and in Para 17 following observation has been made:-
"17. In this regard we reiterate what has been observed by one of us (Nagarathna, J) in X vs. Union of India & Another, I.A. No.211690 of 2023 in M.A. No.2157 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1137 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 as under:
"5. In this context, it would be necessary to reiterate the three Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in X vs. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, authored by Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, presently the Chief Justice of India, of which paragraphs 99, 101 and 102 read as under:
"99. The ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children. It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare. Women must also have the autonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence.10
xxx
101. To this, we may add that a woman is oftenenmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste. Such external societal factors affect the way a woman exercises autonomy and control over her body, particularly in matters relating to reproductive decisions. Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of legal barriers restricting a woman's right to access abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only the woman can choose on her own terms without external interference or influence. Reproductive autonomy requires that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any consent or authorization from a third party.
102. The right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy. As the term itself suggests, bodily autonomy is the right to take decisions about one's body. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman's body as well as her mind cannot be understated. The fetus relies on the pregnant woman's body for sustenance and nourishment until it is born. The biological process of pregnancy transforms the woman's body to permit this. The woman may experience swelling, body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and restricted mobility, to name a few of a host of side effects. Further, complications may arise which pose a risk to the life of the woman. A mere description of the side effects of a pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the visceral image of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, the decision to carry the pregnancy to its full term or terminate it is firmly rooted in the right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman.11
(underlining by me)"
6. Unwanted pregnancy as a result of failure in a family planning method, even during the period of Lactational Amenorrhea as in the instant case or as a result of sexual assault results in the same consequence. The pregnant lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy. In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant considerations. What is to be focused upon is, whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not. This is what has been emphasized by this Court in the aforesaid three Judge Bench decision which is binding on this Bench.
7. It may not be out of place to note that a foetus is dependent on the mother and cannot be recognized as an individual personality from that of the mother as its very existence is owed to the mother. It would be incongruous to conclude that the foetus has a separate identity from the mother and in spite of the physical or mental health of a mother being under threat, she will have to continue her pregnancy until the foetus is born which would endanger her delicate health. Such a position is contrary to Article 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India which recognize the right to life and liberty and particularly those of a woman. One cannot also lose sight of the fact that reproduction is unique to women and throughout her life, a woman goes through the process of menstruation, pregnancy, delivery, post- delivery phase and ultimately menopause. As stated above, right to reproductive health being a woman's human right would also include the right to an abortion. Otherwise, a woman who is forced into an unwanted pregnancy would experience physical and mental trauma and to endure the pregnancy which may continue in the post-natal period owing to which she would have the burden of bringing up an additional child and consequently, may lose out on other 12 opportunities in life including right to employment and contribution to the income of the family."
14. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Suchita Shrivastava and Another Vs. Chandigarh Administration' [(2009) 9 SCC 1] observed that in cases involving mental capacity, the Court must apply the "best interests" test, prioritizing the woman's individual welfare and reproductive rights over the concerns of guardians or society and held in Paras 25, 26, 36 & 37 as under:-
"25. In all such circumstances, the consent of the pregnant woman is an essential requirement for proceeding with the termination of pregnancy. This position has been unambiguously stated in Section 3(4)(b) of the MTP Act, 1971.
26. The exceptions to this rule of consent have been laid down in Section 3(4)(a) of the Act. Section 3(4)(a) lays down that when the pregnant woman is below eighteen years of age or is a 'mentally ill' person, the pregnancy can be terminated if the guardian of the pregnant woman gives consent for the same. The only other exception is found in Section 5(1) of the MTP Act which permits a registered medical practitioner to proceed with a termination of pregnancy when he/she is of an opinion formed in good faith that the same is 'immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman'. Clearly, none of these exceptions are applicable to the present case.
36. Courts in other common law jurisdictions have developed two distinct standards while exercising "parens patriae" jurisdiction for the purpose of making reproductive decisions on behalf of mentally retarded persons. These two standards are the "best interests" test and the "substituted judgment" test.13
37. As evident from its literal description, the "best interests"
test requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. In the present setting this means that the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of the other stakeholders such as guardians or the society in general. It is evident that the woman in question will need care and assistance which will in turn entail some costs. However, that cannot be a ground for denying the exercise of reproductive rights."
15. The petitioner victim of sexual exploitation herself carry stigma in her life. In facts situation of the case, if she is not permitted to terminate her pregnancy, which is result of sexual exploitation, then it would be against her liberty and right to decide whether she continues with the pregnancy or not ?
16. Hence, in light of the medical report and the settled legal precedents established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court, it is evident that forcing the petitioner who is a mentally challenged survivor of sexual exploitation to carry an unwanted pregnancy would cause a grave harm to her physically and mentally. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant permission for the medical termination of the pregnancy, prioritizing the petitioner's long-term physical and psychological well-being over the continuation of a pregnancy resulting from a alleged traumatic offence.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner, is allowed. Petitioner victim is permitted to 14 appear before the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Kanker, along with her guardian/relative, who (CMHO, Kanker) in turn, shall ensure that pregnancy of petitioner be terminated as per provisions of the Act, 1971 after completing all the other requisite formalities required for the same and provide proper medical facilities. The Chief Medical and Health Officer is further directed that termination of pregnancy of the petitioner be done under the supervision of at-least two doctors including Specialist Doctor in the field of Department of Gynecology following the provisions of the Act, 1971, ensuring that the DNA sample of the foetus shall also be taken and preserved for further evidence of criminal case.
18. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out without any further delay. The petitioner shall appear before the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Kanker on 22.04.2026 for the aforesaid purpose. The Chief Medical & Health Officer shall further take all necessary steps. The State Counsel is also directed to intimate the concerned Chief Medical & Health Officer as regard the next course of action that has to be taken.
19. It is also observed that Station House Officer of Police Station Kanker shall cooperate with the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Kanker for the aforesaid purpose, if required.
20. The examination report submitted by State Counsel so far as the health condition of the petitioner, shall be made part of the record. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay