The Madhya Pradesh High Court has permitted the medical termination of pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor after noting that both the minor and her mother had consented to the procedure and a Medical Board had found the pregnancy fit for termination. While allowing the request, the Court also raised concern over the growing practice of hospitals approaching courts even in cases where the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act already authorizes doctors to act.
Background of the Case
The matter reached the High Court after a communication sent to the Registrar General was treated as a suo motu writ petition. The case involved a minor girl, around 17 years of age, who became pregnant following an alleged sexual assault.
During medical examination, a Medical Board found that the pregnancy had advanced to about 10 weeks. Although the Board noted certain medical risks because of the girl's young age and low body weight, it concluded that termination could be safely carried out at a medical college equipped with appropriate facilities. The risks had already been explained to the survivor and her mother, both of whom gave written consent for the procedure.
Court's Observations
Justice Vishal Mishra referred to the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and observed that the law clearly permits termination of pregnancy in eligible cases through registered medical practitioners, subject to the statutory requirements.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Relying on recent Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that the health, dignity, privacy and reproductive choice of a pregnant woman remain central to the legal framework governing medical termination of pregnancy.
Quoting the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court noted that, "The health of the woman is paramount," and that consent of the pregnant person is of utmost importance in decisions relating to reproductive choices.
The High Court further observed that, in the present case, the survivor and her mother had voluntarily consented to termination and there was no legal impediment to permitting the procedure.
Court Questions Unnecessary Litigation
Apart from deciding the individual case, the Court expressed concern over a recurring administrative practice where hospitals and local authorities seek judicial permission even when the MTP Act itself empowers medical practitioners to terminate pregnancies below the prescribed gestational limit.
The bench observed,
"Once there is a specific provision provided under the Act of 1971, why permission of this Court is required for terminating pregnancy."
The Court remarked that such matters are urgent in nature and unnecessary referrals to courts delay medical treatment, despite the statutory mechanism already being available.
It also directed the Civil Surgeon and Assistant Chief Superintendent of the concerned hospital to explain why court permission was sought in a case where the pregnancy was well within the statutory limit. Additionally, copies of the order were directed to be sent to the Principal Secretary and Director of the Health Department so that suitable instructions could be issued to avoid similar situations in future.
Decision
Allowing the petition, the High Court permitted termination of the minor survivor's pregnancy under the supervision of an expert medical team. It directed that all necessary medical care, counselling, post-operative treatment and precautionary measures be provided.
The Court also instructed doctors to preserve fetal samples for DNA examination, if required during the criminal proceedings, and emphasized that the survivor should be treated with sensitivity while ensuring her physical and emotional well-being throughout the medical process.
Case Details
Case Title: Prosecutrix 'X' v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 25213 of 2026
Judge: Justice Vishal Mishra
Decision Date: 6 July 2026
