Chattisgarh High Court
X vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 August, 2026
1
CGHC010299192026 2026:CGHC:34831
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 4028 of 2026
X Nil
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal
Nagar, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Collector District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
3 - Superintendent Of Police Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
4 - Station House Officer P.S. Civil Lines Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
5 - Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science Through Its Director And
Medical Superintendent, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate
For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
07.08.2026
1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has sought appropriate directions for
termination of her pregnancy, which is alleged to have occurred
2
as a consequence of the sexual assault committed upon her. The
petitioner is a victim of rape and offences punishable under the
provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012. It is the case of the petitioner that she is minor (aged about
14 years & 10 months), she was subjected to sexual exploitation,
as a result of which, she has conceived and is presently carrying
the pregnancy of about 18 weeks. Petitioner has approached this
Court seeking protection of her right to reproductive autonomy,
bodily integrity and dignity, contending that continuation of the
pregnancy would cause severe mental trauma and psychological
distress to her. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of appropriate
directions to the concerned respondent authorities to facilitate
medical termination of her pregnancy in accordance with law.
The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
“10. Reliefs Sought:
10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct to respondent no.5 to
constitute a medical board to assess the
feasibility of carrying out medical termination of
pregnancy upon the petitioner and report of the
medical board may kindly be submitted before
the Hon’ble Court for kind perusal.
10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct to respondent no.5 to carryout
medical termination of pregnancy upon the
petitioner.
10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be
pleased to direct to respondents authorities to
bear the expenses of medical termination of
pregnancy conducted on the petitioner.
3
10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court
deems fit and proper in favour of the petitioner
as per the facts & circumstance of the present
case, in the ends of justice.”
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 03.08.2026, this
Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
State Counsel, took note of the submission that the petitioner is a
victim of rape and is carrying a pregnancy alleged to have arisen
out of the sexual assault committed upon her. Considering the
nature of allegations, the relief sought by the petitioner and the
provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as
amended in 2021, this Court directed the Chief Medical and
Health Officer, District Bilaspur, to issue necessary instructions to
the concerned medical team forthwith and ensure that the medical
examination of the victim is conducted at the earliest. The detailed
report of the Medical Board shall be submitted before this Court
on or before 07.08.2026, enabling this Court to pass appropriate
further orders in accordance with law.
3. Learned State Counsel submits that, in compliance with the order
dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was
examined by the duly constituted Medical Board under the
supervision of the concerned CMHO and the report thereof has
been received from the concerned authorities and same is
submitted before this Court.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
4
perused the record.
5. Before adverting to the facts of the present case and the opinion
rendered by the Medical Board, it would be apposite to notice the
statutory framework governing the issue of medical termination of
pregnancy. The field is regulated by the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The object of the
enactment is to provide a legal mechanism for termination of
certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners in
specified circumstances while safeguarding the life, physical
health and mental well-being of the pregnant woman. Section 3 of
the Act constitutes the substantive provision governing the
circumstances and conditions under which a pregnancy may be
medically terminated. The said provision delineates the situations
in which a registered medical practitioner may form an opinion
regarding the permissibility of termination of pregnancy, including
cases where continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to
the life of the pregnant woman or cause grave injury to her
physical or mental health. The provision also recognizes special
categories of women, including survivors of sexual assault, rape,
incest and minors, and incorporates a statutory presumption of
grave injury to mental health in such cases. Since the adjudication
of the present petition revolves around the applicability of the
aforesaid statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to
reproduce Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
(MTP) Act, 1971, as amended in 2021 for ready reference:
5
“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) 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.
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
6
woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting
the number of children or preventing
pregnancy, the anguish caused by such
pregnancy shall 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
7
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.”
(3) In determining whether the continuance of a
pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to
the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2),
account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s
actual or reasonably 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.”
6. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava and
Another v Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 has laid
down the guidelines based on the principle of “best interests”
theory and held that the Court is required to ascertain the course
of action which would serve the best interests of the person in
question. Paras 36 and 37 read thus :
8
“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.
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.”
7. The Supreme Court in the matter of X v Union of India and
others, (2016) 14 SCC 382 has clearly held that termination of
pregnancy after 20 weeks to save life of pregnant woman (an
alleged rape victim) in case of grave danger to physical and
mental health of the said woman, is permissible, and observed as
under :
9
“13. Having perused the medical report
(relevant extracts whereof have been
reproduced herein above), we are satisfied that
a clear finding has been recorded by the
Medical Board, that the risk to the petitioner of
continuation of her pregnancy can gravely
endanger her physical and mental health. The
Medical Board has also expressed an advice
that the patient should not continue with the
pregnancy. In view of the findings recorded in
Para 6 of the report, coupled with the
recommendation and advice tendered by the
Medical Board, we are satisfied that it is
permissible to allow the petitioner to terminate
her pregnancy in terms of Section 5 of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. In
view of the above, we grant liberty to the
petitioner, if she is so advised, to terminate her
pregnancy.”
8. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in
the matter of X and others v. Union of India and others, (2017)
3 SCC 458 and also in the matter of Meera Santosh Pal and
others v Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC 462.
9. Further, in the matter of Mrs. A v Union of India and others, AIR
2017 SC 4037 the Supreme Court has granted permission for
termination of pregnancy of a woman, aged 22 years, in her 25th
to 26th weeks of pregnancy holding that continuation of
pregnancy can pose severe mental injury to the petitioner and no
additional risk to the petitioner’s life is involved if she is allowed to
10
undergo termination of her pregnancy. Their Lordships held as
under :
“6. Upon evaluation of the petitioner, the
aforesaid Medical Board has concluded that
her current pregnancy is of 25 to 26 weeks.
The condition of the foetus is not compatible
with life. The medical evidence clearly suggests
that there is no point in allowing the pregnancy
to run its full course since the foetus would not
be able to survive outside the uterus without a
skull.
7. Importantly, it is reported that the
continuation of pregnancy can pose severe
mental injury to the petitioner and no additional
risk to the petitioner’s life is involved if she is
allowed to undergo termination of her
pregnancy.”
10. In the case of X v Union of India & others, (2016) 14 SCC 382
the request for termination of pregnancy was in a case where the
pregnancy was of more than 20 weeks. The Supreme Court has
permitted termination of pregnancy in matters, where the
pregnancy was more than 20 weeks.
11. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the matter of X v Principal
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department,
Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 433
held thus at para 127 :
“127. The object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act
read with Rule 3-B is to provide for abortions
11between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered
unwanted due to a change in the material
circumstances of women. In view of the object,
there is no rationale for excluding unmarried or
single women (who face a change in their
material circumstances) from the ambit of Rule 3-
B. A narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B, limited only
to married women, would render the provision
discriminatory towards unmarried women and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article
14 requires the State to refrain from denying to
any person equality before the law or equal
protection of laws. Prohibiting unmarried or single
pregnant women (whose pregnancies are
between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from
accessing abortion while allowing married women
to access them during the same period would fall
foul of the spirit guiding Article 14. The law should
not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on
narrow patriarchal principles about what
constitutes “permissible sex”, which create
invidious classifications and excludes groups
based on their personal circumstances. The rights
of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy
under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the
right of choice on whether or not to bear a child,
on a similar footing of a married woman.”
12. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v.
State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal no.827/2026
decided on 06.02.2026, while dealing with the similar issue, has
held as follows :-
12
“16. ……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 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.Î¥. 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
13include 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
often enmeshed 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.
14
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.
(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
15
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
16
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 pregnancy.”
13. 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:
17
“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…….”
14. This Court in WPC No. 2836 of 2026 (XYZ and Another v. State
of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 15.06.2026 in
paragraph No. 20 in a similar situation allowing the writ petition
has held as under:
“20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
facts of the present case squarely satisfy the
18requirements envisaged under Section 3 of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as
amended in 2021. The pregnancy is within the
statutorily permissible period. The victim has
expressed her free and informed desire not to
continue with the pregnancy. The Medical Board
has opined that termination is medically feasible.
The pregnancy is alleged to be the
consequence of repeated sexual assault upon a
minor girl. Therefore, the statutory presumption
of grave injury to the mental health of the
petitioner stands attracted and there exists no
legal impediment in permitting medical
termination of pregnancy.”
15. 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 (supra) and also Sarmishtha Chakraborthy (supra)
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 liberty and right
to decide whether she should continue with the pregnancy or she
should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy.
16. 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,
19
then it would be against her liberty and right to decide whether
she continues with the pregnancy or not ?
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S v. The Union of
India and others passed in Civil Appeal No.6667/2026 arising
out of SLP (Civil) No. 14454/2026) decided on 24.04.2026 held
in paragraphs No.11.3, 14 & 14.1, reads as under:-
“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 rather than 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
20circumstances 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.
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, 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
21autonomy, 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.”
18. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice that Explanation 2
appended to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, creates a statutory presumption
that where a pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape,
the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant
woman. The legislative intent underlying the said provision is
clear and unambiguous. A woman who is compelled to carry a
pregnancy resulting from rape is presumed in law to suffer grave
mental injury. The presumption assumes even greater
significance where the victim is a child or a minor, as in the
present case. The trauma arising from sexual assault, coupled
with the social, emotional and psychological consequences of an
22
unwanted pregnancy, has a profound impact upon the life and
future of the victim.
19. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner was minor
when she was subjected to sexual exploitation. The pregnancy is
not the result of a consensual relationship but is alleged to be the
outcome of offences punishable under the POCSO Act. To
compel such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her
wishes would amount to subjecting her to further trauma and
would seriously impinge upon her bodily integrity, dignity, privacy
and reproductive autonomy, all of which are facets of the right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
20. The victim has expressed her free will and informed desire not to
continue with the pregnancy. The pregnancy is alleged to be the
consequence of sexual assault upon a minor girl. Therefore, the
statutory presumption of grave injury to the mental health of the
petitioner stands attracted and there exists no legal impediment
in permitting medical termination of unwanted pregnancy.
21. Having perused the material available on record, the report
submitted by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order
dated 03.08.2026 and the legal position governing the field, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the present case deserves
to be examined not merely on the basis of the numerical
gestational age reflected in the sonography report but in the
backdrop of the constitutional rights of the petitioner and the
23
peculiar facts attending the case. The record reveals that the
petitioner was subjected to sexual assault when she was a minor
and, as a consequence thereof, conceived the present
pregnancy. The FIR has already been registered for offences
punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act. The
petitioner has consistently and unequivocally expressed her
unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy and has
approached this Court seeking protection of her reproductive
autonomy and bodily integrity. The pregnancy is, therefore,
undeniably an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape and
continuation thereof would undoubtedly inflict grave mental
trauma and psychological suffering upon the petitioner.
22. Explanation 2 appended to Section 3 of the Medical Termination
of Pregnancy Act, 1971 creates a statutory presumption that
where pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape, the
anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant
woman. The legislative intent is explicit that a woman who has
conceived as a consequence of rape should not be compelled to
undergo further psychological trauma by continuation of an
unwanted pregnancy. The said presumption acquires still greater
significance where the victim was a minor on the date of the
incident, as in the present case. Compelling such a victim to
continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to
24
perpetuating the trauma already suffered by her and would
seriously impair her dignity, bodily integrity and mental well-being.
23. The decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in aforementioned
case-laws unequivocally recognise that reproductive autonomy is
an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The consistent
view of the Supreme Court is that while considering requests for
medical termination of pregnancy, the paramount consideration is
the interest, dignity, bodily autonomy and mental health of the
pregnant woman and not merely the gestational age reflected in a
medical report. The Constitutional Courts are expected to adopt a
purposive and humane interpretation consistent with the object of
the enactment so that a victim of sexual assault is not compelled
to undergo further physical and psychological suffering.
24. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case,
this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out an
exceptional case warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The pregnancy is
admittedly the consequence of rape committed upon the
petitioner when she was a minor. The petitioner has consistently
expressed her free and informed desire not to continue with the
pregnancy. The gestational age reflected in the sonography
report is itself an estimated assessment carrying an accepted
margin of variation of approximately ±2 weeks and cannot be
25
treated as conclusive for denying relief in a case involving
violation of fundamental rights. In the considered opinion of this
Court, refusal to permit termination in the peculiar facts of the
present case would result in continuing infringement of the
petitioner’s right to dignity, privacy, bodily autonomy and
reproductive choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
25. On perusal of report submitted by the concerned Authority in
compliance of order of this Court’s dated 03.08.2026, it appears
that medical examination of the petitioner/victim has been
conducted by the concerned Medical Board and according to the
report, petitioner is mentally and physically fit to undergo the
medical termination of her pregnancy.
26. Consequently in order to secure the physical, mental and
emotional well-being of the petitioner, who is a victim of rape and
has consistently expressed her unwillingness to continue with the
unwanted pregnancy, the present writ petition deserves to be and
is accordingly allowed. The concerned Authorities are directed to
conduct the medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner and,
as such, petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned
Authorities on 10.08.2026 (Monday) for admission in the hospital
for termination of her pregnancy. The concerned Chief Medical
and Health Officer, Bilaspur, is directed to ensure the admission
of the petitioner in the conceived Government hospital having the
26
requisite infrastructure and expertise for undertaking medical
termination of pregnancy. The procedure shall be carried out by a
duly constituted multidisciplinary team of senior medical experts,
including experienced Gynaecologists, Anaesthetists, Physicians,
Neonatologists and such other specialists as may be considered
necessary, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended, and
the applicable medical protocol, while taking all necessary
precautions to safeguard the life and health of the petitioner.
27. Before undertaking the procedure, the medical team shall obtain
the informed written consent of the petitioner in accordance with
law. The petitioner shall be apprised, in a language understood
by her, of the nature of the procedure, the attendant risks,
possible complications and the post-operative care required.
Since the petitioner was minor at the time of the alleged incident
and has throughout been accompanied and supported by her
family, the presence of her mother/legal guardian shall also be
ensured during the entire process, and necessary consent of the
guardian, wherever required under law, shall also be obtained.
28. The concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer shall personally
supervise compliance of this order and extend all necessary
medical, logistical and administrative assistance to the petitioner.
The CMHO shall also ensure that necessary transportation,
including ambulance facilities, is made available to the petitioner
27
for her travel to and from the hospital, if required, and that the
procedure is undertaken in a safe, dignified and expeditious
manner without causing any inconvenience or hardship to her.
29. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be provided with all
necessary pre-operative, operative and post-operative medical
care, counselling and psychological support by the concerned
hospital authorities. The identity, privacy and confidentiality of the
petitioner shall be maintained with utmost care and shall not be
disclosed to any person except to the extent required by law.
30. Since Crime No.1012/2026 registered at Police Station -Civil
Lines, Bilaspur, for offences punishable under the provisions of
the POCSO Act and other allied penal provisions is stated to be
under investigation/trial, the concerned hospital authorities shall
preserve the foetal tissue, placenta, blood samples, DNA
samples and all other biological material strictly in accordance
with the applicable medical and forensic protocols. The same
shall be appropriately sealed and preserved and shall be made
available to the Investigating Officer, whenever required, for the
purposes of investigation.
31. A copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the
concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer as well as the
Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, for immediate compliance.
Learned State counsel shall also ensure prompt communication
and implementation of this order without any delay.
28
32. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Bilaspur, shall ensure
faithful compliance of the directions contained herein and, after
completion of the medical termination procedure and necessary
post-operative treatment, shall submit a detailed compliance
report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period
of two weeks. The report shall indicate the date on which the
petitioner was admitted, the date of the procedure, the medical
condition of the petitioner before and after the procedure, the
treatment and assistance extended to her, and the steps taken for
preservation of forensic evidence. The Registrar (Judicial) shall
place the said report before the appropriate Bench for information
and further orders, if required.
33. The report submitted by the Medical Board pursuant to the order
dated 03.08.2026 is taken on record. After retaining a copy
thereof on the record of the case, the original sealed-cover report
shall be resealed and kept in safe custody by the Registry,
maintaining complete confidentiality of the identity and medical
particulars of the petitioner.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
J.
