Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 20116U / 2026Xxx vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 22 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:25455]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11023/2026
Minor Victim "S" through her Natural Guardian
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Sirohi.
3. The Superintendent, Sub District Hospital (Sdh), Abu
Road, District Sirohi.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Sirohi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Rathore for Mr. NS
Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order 22/05/2026
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to terminate the pregnancy of Ms. "S" (aged about 16 years), a minor victim of rape, under Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
2. Bereft of elaborate details, the brief facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ petition are as under :-
2.1. The petitioner/grandfather lodged a complaint alleging therein that his minor granddaughter "S" used to graze goats near (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (2 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] Panduri River area, where the accused, who was known to the victim, forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and further threatened her with death in case she disclosed the incident to anyone. Owing to fear, intimidation and social vulnerability, the victim remained silent and could not narrate the incident immediately to her family members. Consequently, FIR came to be registered for offences under Section 64(1) of the BNS and Sections 3, 4, 5(j)(ii) and 6 of the POCSO Act.
2.2. It is further borne out from the record that after the victim missed her menstrual cycle for several months, the family members became suspicious and upon medical examination, it was discovered that the victim had conceived and was pregnant as a consequence of the sexual assault committed by the accused.
2.3. Considering the urgency involved in the matter, this Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 directed constitution of a Medical Board comprising two qualified medical specialists i.e. one Gynaecologist and one Obstetrician in the presence of a qualified physician.
2.4. Pursuant thereto, the report submitted by the Medical Board constituted at Government Medical College & Affiliated Hospital, Sirohi dated 18.05.2026 revealed that the victim was carrying a live fetus of approximately 26 weeks and 4 days. The report further disclosed that upon conducting blood and urine investigations and medical examination of the victim, her haemoglobin level was found to be 6.0 gm/dl. The Medical Board further opined that since the pregnancy had exceeded 24 weeks, any medical termination ought to be undertaken only at Medical (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (3 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] College situated at Divisional Headquarters, Jodhpur. Accordingly, considering the complexities involved in the matter, this Court directed the Superintendent, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur to forthwith constitute a Medical Board for comprehensive evaluation of the condition of the minor victim and feasibility and consequences of medical termination of pregnancy.
2.5. In compliance thereof, the Medical Board, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur submitted its report on 21.05.2026 observing that USG conducted on 20.05.2026 was suggestive of single live intrauterine fetus of gestational age 27 weeks and 4 days with placenta anterior and haemoglobin level of 6.9 gm%. The Medical Board opined that though pregnancy could be terminated, the same carried inherent risks associated with teenage pregnancy, severe anaemia and advanced gestational age, ICU admission and possibility of premature newborn requiring NICU care.
2.6. Furthermore, considering the peculiar nature of the case and keeping in mind the settled principle that a woman has autonomy over her body, this Court vide order dated 21.05.2026 directed learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi to record the statement of the minor victim "S" with regard to her willingness or unwillingness to terminate the pregnancy.
2.7. In compliance thereof, the statement of victim has been recorded and produced before this Court along with report which reveals that the minor victim has categorically expressed her willingness to terminate the pregnancy. The statement of the victim is quoted hereunder:
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (4 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] "मेरे साथ जबरदस्ती हुई थी इसलिए मैं यह बच्चा गिराना चाहती हूं । मैं अपनी मरजी से यह बच्चा गिराना चाहती हूं , इसके लिए मुझे किसी ने धमकाया या दबाव नही बनाया है । मैं अपने घर जाकर यह बच्चा गिराना चाहती हूं , इसलिए मुझे जल्दी घर जाना है । मुझे और कुछ नही ं कहना।"
2.8. The critical period of twenty weeks, before which alone there can be safe abortion, was over. The petitioner alleged that his minor granddaughter was made pregnant on account of rape committed by the accused and therefore, it is requested to refer the petitioner's granddaughter to the Government Hospital in order to get the pregnancy terminated. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. In continuation of the above facts as averred in the writ petition, the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as under :-
4.1. It is submitted that the victim is a 16-year-old minor girl carrying pregnancy of approximately 27 weeks as a consequence of repeated sexual assault and rape, and therefore the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Sections 3 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
4.2. It is further submitted that Explanation-I to Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 statutorily presumes that pregnancy caused due to rape constitutes grave injury to the mental health of the victim and therefore no separate proof of mental trauma is required in the present case. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in X v. Union of India, (2023) 9 SCC 1; X v. Principal (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (5 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 14 SCC 1 and Suchita Srivastava v.
Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 to contend that reproductive autonomy, dignity and bodily integrity to a woman are integral facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4.3. It is also submitted that despite registration of FIR on 08.05.2026 and preparation of Medico Legal Report on 11.05.2026 disclosing the pregnancy, however, no immediate steps were taken by the respondent authorities for medical termination of pregnancy of victim and the delay on the part of the authorities has brought the victim to the threshold of the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, thereby jeopardising her constitutional and statutory rights.
4.4. It is further contended that there exists a serious systemic lapse inasmuch as no mandatory protocol for pregnancy testing in POCSO cases has been framed by the State. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments in State of Karnataka v. Shivanna Tarkari, (2014) 8 SCC 913 and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703 to submit that pregnancy testing and medical examination of minor rape victims ought to be conducted without delay and therefore appropriate directions deserve to be issued to the State for framing a Standard Operating Procedure mandating pregnancy testing within 24 hours of registration of FIR in POCSO cases.
4.5. It is submitted that the victim belongs to a socio- economically marginalised family and compelling her to continue the unwanted pregnancy arising out of rape would irreparably (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (6 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] prejudice her dignity, education, rehabilitation and future prospects in violation of her rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
4.6. It is further submitted that if medical termination of pregnancy is not allowed, the respondents be directed to ensure that all necessary hospital facilities, medical care, nutritional support and psychological assistance are provided to the victim and suitable compensation be awarded to the petitioner and the minor victim under the provisions of the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.
5. Per contra, Mr. Shersingh, associate to learned AAG appearing on behalf of respondent authorities has submitted following arguments :-
5.1. It is contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the termination ought not to be permitted. However, while it is recognised that a woman possesses autonomy over her own body, the Court, in matters of this nature, is also required to adopt a holistic approach, taking into consideration the medical reports, the willingness of the victim, and the woman's bodily autonomy.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record as well as the reports submitted by the Medical Boards constituted under the directions of this Court and the statement of the minor victim 'S' recorded by CJM, Sirohi, this Court finds that the victim is a minor girl aged about 16 years and the pregnancy in question is admittedly a consequence of sexual assault.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (7 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] 6.1. It is not disputed that FIR has been registered for offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Explanation-I to Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 clearly provides that where pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the minor victim "S" recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has categorically stated that the pregnancy in question is a consequence of rape committed by the accused.
6.2. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.4774/2026 has reiterated that reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, decisional privacy and dignity of a woman form integral facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that no rape survivor can be compelled to continue with an unwanted pregnancy against her wishes. The relevant portion is reproduced herein as:
"16. We are also not on the question whether the relationship was consensual or whether it was a case of sexual assault although a criminal complaint has been lodged by the appellant in January 2026. That is not the issue to be considered in the present case. Ultimately, the denominator is the fact that the child to be born is not out of a wedlock and secondly, the mother to be of the child does not want to bear such a child. If the interest of the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so; that would be more traumatic for a minor such as the appellant's daughter in the instant case.
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 (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (8 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] 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.
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 (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (9 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman.
(underlining by me)"
6. Unwanted pregnancy as a result of failure in a familyplanning 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 isdependent 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 opportunities in life including right to employment and contribution to the income of the family.
xxx This is not to say that in every case where there is an unwanted pregnancy, this Court or the High Courts ought to exercise its jurisdiction and order for termination. It would depend on the facts of each case.
But in this case, when the petitioner is determined to terminate her pregnancy and has completely detached herself from the fact that she would be giving birth to her child shortly, she cannot be made worse off by this Court by declining to grant her the relief she has sought and thereby forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy."
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (10 of 20) [CW-11023/2026]
18. In the circumstances, we accept the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
19. We allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.2388 of 2026. 20. We direct that the appellant's daughter is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy."
6.3. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in S vs. Union of India & Ors., SLP (Civil) No.14454/2026 while observing that Constitutional Courts, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, are required to prioritise the welfare, dignity and reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman, particularly where the pregnancy is unwanted and has arisen out of sexual assault, has held that:
"11. The Court must, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, therefore, prioritize the best interests of the minor mother-to-be in the present case, over the procedural and statutory limitations under the MTP Act. If the interest and welfare of the mother-to-be are to be given due consideration, her reproductive autonomy must be accorded the highest importance. This is particularly having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
11.1 The right to make decisions concerning one's body, particularly in matters of reproduction, is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing unreasonable restrictions, especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies, such as in the instant case. 11.2 No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decisional autonomy but could also inflict grave mental, emotional and physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth. In these circumstances, denying the relief sought would compel the minor to endure irreversible consequences. Such an approach would be contrary to the constitutional ethos and the settled principles recognizing reproductive choice as a fundamental right. What is of relevance is the choice of the pregnant woman rather than the interest of an unborn child. It is easy to say that if the pregnant woman is not interested in raising the child, she may give away the child in adoption and therefore must be compelled into giving birth to the child. However, that cannot be the correct approach, particularly, in cases where the child to be born is unwanted. In such a situation, directing the pregnant woman to give birth to the child against her wishes and to forcefully continue her pregnancy would negate the welfare of the pregnant woman and make it subordinate to the child yet to be born.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (11 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] 11.3 We find that in cases of unwanted pregnancy, often the decision to terminate is made beyond the statutory period prescribed under the MTP Act owing to several reasons. It is under such circumstances that Constitutional Courts must weigh the circumstances in which a case in relation to the welfare of the pregnant woman has to be considered ratherthan the child to be born. In fact, under certain grounds, the MTP Act itself permits termination of pregnancy which is therefore recognised in law. The Constitutional Court is approached only when the statutory remedy is not available to a party. Can the Constitutional Court then say that since the statutory remedy is not available, no constitutional remedy would be available. That, in our view, cannot be the approach. A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy. The statute codifies a part of the constitutional remedy. If a case is not covered within the four corners of a statute then, can the constitutional relief be also denied? In our view, in such circumstances, the Constitutional Court ought to weigh all facts and circumstances from the lens of the party who intends to terminate the pregnancy and is willing to undertake the medical risk, rather than compelling her to complete the pregnancy term and give birth to an unwanted child. If the pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to continue such a pregnancy, then the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman would be breached.
11.4 Further, if the Constitutional Court adopts the view that even an unwanted pregnancy must be continued, then instead of approaching the Court for permission, pregnant women would visit illegal abortion centres and secretly undergo termination of such pregnancies which would only make such women more vulnerable and expose them to more dangerous procedures. It is under such considerations that a Constitutional Court must decide what is best in the interest of the pregnant woman, particularly, when the pregnancy is unwanted as in the present case.
12. It is necessary to revisit the facts in the present case. The appellant's daughter is herself a minor girl of fifteen years. The pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy which is outside the wedlock and continuing the pregnancy is not in the interest of the pregnant minor particularly when she has attempted to foreclose her life on two occasions. The minor is willing to undergo the medical risk of a termination of pregnancy. The termination of pregnancy would be bearing in mind the long term social, economic and emotional interest of the pregnant minor.
13. Further, the mental health of a pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy also must be borne in mind and given its due importance. If she is forced to continue her pregnancy and give birth the consequences would be adverse. An unwanted pregnancy and the effect thereof on the mindset of such a pregnant woman will also have a bearing on the child to be born. The decision not to continue a pregnancy and to seek termination with all attendant risks must be respected rather than compelling such a pregnant woman to continue such a pregnancy.
14. We may usefully refer to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, wherein it has been authoritatively held that a woman's right to reproductive autonomy includes the right to choose whether and when to have children, (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (12 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] the number of children to have, and the right to access safe and legal abortion and reproductive healthcare. This Court recognized that the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy arises out of complex and deeply personal circumstances, which only the woman herself is best placed to evaluate. Reproductive autonomy, therefore, necessarily entails that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to decide whether to undergo an abortion. Importantly, this Court also observed that a mere clinical description of pregnancy cannot capture the profound physical and psychological consequences of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Consequently, the decision to either continue or terminate a pregnancy is firmly rooted in the woman's right to bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, which are integral facets of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
14.1 In the context of the present case, we may refer to the decision of A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal No.827 of 2026, where, on similar facts, this Court had allowed medical termination of pregnancy of 30 weeks of a minor girl. In that case too, the pregnancy in question arose out of a consensual relationship, and much like the present case, the continuation of the pregnancy was stated to be traumatic both mentally as well as physically to the minor girl as it was an unwanted pregnancy.
15. Thus, what is relevant is whether the pregnant woman intends to give birth to a child or not. In the instant case, the facts of the case reveal that the minor girl intends not to give birth.
15.1 Keeping that in view, when Constitutional Courts are approached by unintending mothers seeking termination of pregnancy, they ought not take a prohibitory approach. The consequence of such an approach will not be the cessation of late-term terminations, which will happen anyway, but only their displacement outside the law. Pregnant women may be driven to seek termination through unregulated means, often at a greater risk to their life and health. Thus, the unintended consequence of judicial reluctance to permit termination beyond the statutory period reinforces the very conditions that the MTP Act seeks to avoid, namely unsafe abortions.
15.2 Moreover, the invocation of foetal normalcy or the fact that the pregnancy has been carried for a considerable duration as grounds to deny termination is of no constitutional persuasiveness. These arguments proceed on the assumptions: first, that in the absence foetal abnormality, the continuation of pregnancy is unobjectionable, and second, that the passage of time extinguishes the pregnant woman's claim to decisional autonomy. 15.3 We wish to lay to rest both the above arguments. Firstly, to predicate access to termination on the existence of foetal anomaly is to make the exercise of a fundamental right over one's body contingent upon pathology of the foetus, which is not in the hands of the unintending mother. In other words, her rights are subordinated to the condition of the foetus over which she has no control. As a matter of constitutional principle, this cannot be allowed. Rights are not functions of circumstance, they attach to humans for the reason that they are free moral agents. To say that termination of pregnancy is thinkable only in the presence of foetal defect instrumentalises the pregnant woman into a conduit who is required to sustain a pregnancy no (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (13 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] matter her will. Secondly, the passage of time does not extinguish the right to make reproductive choices. This argument rests on the untenable presumption that delay means acquiescence, disregarding the manifold reasons that may account for late presentation of pregnancy including but not limited to delayed detection due to irregular menstrual cycles or lack of reproductive awareness, limited access to healthcare services, financial constraints that impede timely medical consultation, and hesitation to disclose a pregnancy coercion, abuse, or lack of familial support: all of which may prevent earlier disclosure.
15.4 Constitutional courts cannot overlook that parties approach them in such hard cases precisely because no effective statutory right remains available. The absence of a legal remedy under the MTP Act is the very reason for the court's jurisdiction being invoked in the first instance. Therefore, to defer mechanically to statutory limitations is to disregard the distinct role of the Constitutional Court in protecting individual rights even when no other statutory remedies exist. The effect of such an approach is to render the fundamental right to bodily autonomy nugatory.
16. The High Court in the present case relied principally on the report dated 18.04.2026 of the Medical Board constituted by AIIMS and concluded that continuation of pregnancy will entail no major danger to the physical and mental health of the minor. We are of the view that this conclusion is not borne out on facts of the case. The report of the Medical Board is silent on the effect of a forced pregnancy on the psychological, emotional, and mental state of the minor, saying only that no psychiatric disorder was revealed in the examination of the minor. However, as we have noted, the minor girl is said to have attempted to commit suicide on two occasions since the factum of pregnancy was revealed to her. It cannot, therefore, be accepted that the minor girl is unaffected in her psychological and emotional well-being merely because no formal psychiatric disorder has been diagnosed. The absence of a clinically diagnosed mental disorder does not negate the presence of severe distress, trauma, or emotional turmoil. The law cannot remain indifferent to the lived experience of the minor, whose actions clearly reflect acute anguish and a compromised state of mental and emotional well- being.
16.1 Further, the report of the Medical Board itself considers the minor girl physically fit for the termination of pregnancy. That, coupled with her own willingness to have the termination undertaken, as also the potential harm in the event of carrying the pregnancy to term, convinces us that the request for termination of pregnancy could not have been denied by the High Court."
6.4. In the present case, the Medical Board constituted at S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur has opined that though termination of pregnancy carries certain risks owing to advanced gestational age and severe anaemia, the same can be undertaken under expert medical supervision. Furthermore, the victim in her statement (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (14 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi has unequivocally expressed her willingness for termination of pregnancy. 6.5. Similarly, the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in the case of XYZ Minor through her natural guardian father vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3027/2025 while allowing termination of pregnancy of 28 to 29 weeks foetus with high risk has held that:
"14. However, we are equally required to be sensitive to the submissions of the counsel of the petitioner that not only the victim has assented for medical termination of pregnancy but also the parents have undertaken to furnish high risk consent to the Authority in case if the medical termination of pregnancy procedure is carried out. The fact remains that the Board consists of not only the Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology but also the Professors of Medicine and Paediatrics. In case if the victim is required to undergo termination of pregnancy as has been prayed, the safety protocol is required to be followed in the matter of medical termination of pregnancy by the Medical Team.
15. In the case in hand, if we consider the age of the victim i.e. 12 years and 5 months and the age of foetus is between 28 to 29 weeks, it is necessary that such procedure must be carried out by the Team of the Doctors which must be of Paediatric Surgeon, Gynaecology Surgeon, so also if possible Doctor of Paediatric Anesthesiologist should also be made part of it.
16. We are not susceptible about safety protocol being followed, as the learned Government Pleader has specifically assured us that safety protocol shall be duly followed in case if this Court permits medical termination of pregnancy.
17. In the aforesaid background and having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid three judgments, it has to be inferred that this Court cannot force the victim to carry her pregnancy against her wish as in such an eventuality, the State would be stripping her of the right to determine the immediate and long term path of her life.
18. Apart from above, we are equally required to be sensitive to the fact that a woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. However in case of unwanted or incidental pregnancy the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman/victim."
6.6. Furthermore, the Allahabad High Court in Ab(2025) through her guardian (Father) vs State of UP and Ors., 2025:AHC:116122-DB while allowing the termination of (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (15 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] pregnancy wherein there was high risk in termination of pregnancy has held that:
"10. A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 6 SCC 327 while considering a case of pregnancy of thirty one weeks, examined in detail the Scheme of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MPT Act) and observed as follows:
"21. ......... The right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice. This right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision to terminate pregnancy is deeply personal for any person. The choice exercised by a pregnant person is not merely about their reproductive freedom but also about their agency as recognised by this Court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi). If is therefore imperative that the fundamental right of a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons other than to protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant person."
11. Again in para 25 of the Law Report, it was emphasized that the first and paramount consideration is the physical and mental health of the pregnant person. In that context, the judgement takes into consideration the relaxation provided by the legislature under Section 3(2-B) in respect of foetal abnormality and held that the relaxation of prescribed timeline to such cases only prima facie appears to be unreasonable and arbitrary inasmuch as a victim of rape is comparable to a case where the foetus is found to be substantially abnormal. A pregnancy out of a consensual relationship cannot be equated with a pregnancy resulting from rape. To wit:
"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, 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) 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.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (16 of 20) [CW-11023/2026]
26. The report failed to form an opinion on the impact of the pregnancy on the physical and mental health of the pregnant person. If a pregnant person meets the condition under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act then there would be no need for any permission by the courts. Therefore, whenever a pregnant person approaches the High Court or this Court, it is imperative for the Medical Board to opine on the physical and mental health of the pregnant person."
12. Further elaborating, the Bench observed that:
"29. The MTP Act has removed the restriction on the length of the pregnancy for termination in only two instances. Section 5 of the MTP Act prescribes that a pregnancy may be terminated, regardless of the gestational age, if the medical practitioner is of the opinion formed in good faith that the termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant person. Section 3(2-B) of the Act stipulates that no limit shall apply on the length of the pregnancy for terminating a foetus with substantial abnormalities. The legislation has made a value judgment in Section 3(2-B) of the Act, that a substantially abnormal foetus would be more injurious to the mental and physical health of a woman than any other circumstance. In this case, the circumstance against which the provision is comparable is rape of a minor. To deny the same enabling provision 9 of the law would appear prima facie unreasonable and arbitrary. The value judgment of the legislation does not appear to be based on scientific parameters but rather on a notion that a substantially abnormal foetus will inflict the most aggravated form of injury to the pregnant person. This formed the basis for this Court to exercise its powers and allow the termination of pregnancy in its order dated 22-4-20243. The provision is arguably suspect on the ground that it unreasonably alters the autonomy of a person by classifying a substantially abnormal foetus differently than instances such as incest or rape. This issue may be examined in an appropriate proceeding should it become necessary."
13. In the concluding part of the judgement, the legal principle, which has been emphasized, is that consent of a pregnant person in decisions of productive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. Again, in XYZ vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573, the court was faced with a request for termination of pregnancy of 27 weeks 2 days +/- 2 weeks. It has been held that 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. In the instant case, as noted above, despite full session of counselling, the petitioner and her parents have not agreed to carry pregnancy to the full term. This may be because of fear of social stigma and/or abject poverty coupled with the fact that the crime committed on her must have left her completely shattered both physically and mentally.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (17 of 20) [CW-11023/2026]
14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, the Court with heavy heart, permits the termination of pregnancy." 6.7. Therefore, this Court is conscious of the fact that the pregnancy has exceeded the statutory period contemplated under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act of 1971. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the age of the victim, the fact that the pregnancy is a consequence of rape, the opinion rendered by the Medical Board and the willingness expressed by the victim, this Court is of the considered opinion that denial of permission for medical termination of pregnancy would result in grave injustice and irreparable physical and mental trauma to the minor victim. 6.8. The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India encompasses within its fold the right to dignity, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy. A minor rape survivor cannot be compelled to continue with an unwanted pregnancy merely on account of the gestational age having crossed the statutory threshold, particularly when the victim herself seeks such termination.
6.9. Accordingly, this Court, with a heavy heart, deems it appropriate to allow the medical termination of pregnancy of minor victim.
7. Consequently, the following directions are issued:
7.1. The Superintendent, S.N. Medical College & Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur shall ensure that medical termination of pregnancy of victim "S" is undertaken forthwith by a team of expert doctors strictly in accordance with prescribed medical (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (18 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] protocol and under proper supervision after taking all necessary precautions.
7.2. The respondents shall ensure that the minor victim is provided all necessary medical facilities, including ICU care, psychological counselling, nutritional support, blood transfusion, post-operative care, and such further medical assistance as may be advised by the treating doctors including blood transfusion and medical observation for a period of 48 hours pre termination of pregnancy, if so required in the best interest of the minor victim.
All expenses towards treatment, hospitalization, medicines, investigations and allied medical care shall be borne by the State Government.
7.3. The said process shall be initiated immediately after receiving the copy of this order.
7.4. The District Magistrate, Jodhpur shall coordinate the entire process and ensure that all ancillary expenses including travel and stay expenses of the victim and her family are also borne by the State Government.
7.5. In view of the pendency of criminal investigation, the concerned hospital authorities shall preserve the foetal tissue/foetus for the purposes of DNA profiling and other forensic examination, if so required for the purposes of investigation and trial.
7.6. The statement recorded by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi shall be taken on record and preserved along with the judicial record of this file.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (19 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] 7.7. The guardian of the minor victim shall furnish a high-risk consent undertaking before the concerned Medical Board and the assent of the victim shall also be made part of the medical record. 7.8. The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority and the concerned District Legal Services Authority shall take appropriate steps for extending compensation and rehabilitation benefits to the victim under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 in accordance with law.
7.9. Let a copy of instant order be handed over to Shri N.S. Rajpurohit, learned AAG for onward communication and compliance by the Balika Grah, Sirohi, District Magistrate, Jodhpur and the Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur.
8. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to certain procedural lapses in cases relating to medical termination of pregnancy, particularly in matters involving minor victims, wherein such lapses have resulted in avoidable delay in initiation and completion of the process, thereby causing additional mental trauma to the victim. It is submitted that the absence of a clear and time-bound Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in such cases often leads to systemic delays, adversely affecting the reproductive rights and bodily autonomy of the victim. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the issue raised requires serious consideration for issuance of appropriate directions and framing of a Standard Operating Procedure to ensure expeditious handling of such sensitive matters in future. However, having regard to the urgency involved in the present case, this Court has at this stage, confined itself to (Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:25455] (20 of 20) [CW-11023/2026] the adjudication of the prayer for medical termination of pregnancy alone.
9. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to consider the issue relating to formulation of SOPs and issuance of necessary directions in this regard after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is admitted.
11. Since the respondents are represented through learned AAG therefore, no need to issue notice to the respondents.
12. List this matter in the first week of July for further hearing treating the matter as part heard.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 285-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 05:50:19 PM) (Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 04:03:31 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)