Madras High Court
Xxx vs The Inspector Of Police on 7 July, 2026
Author: Mohammed Shaffiq
Bench: Mohammed Shaffiq
WP No. 26441 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-07-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
WP No. 26441 of 2026
and WMP.No.28914 of 2026
xxx
xx
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Inspector of Police
AWPS - Washermenpet,
Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 021
2. The Director
Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecolgy and
Government hospital for Women and Children,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3. The State
Rep by secretary,
Health Department,
Secretairat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to permit and
facilitate the medical termination of petitioner’s daughter’s pregnancy in
accordance with law, including Section 5 of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act 1971 on the basis of the opinion of the Competent Medical
Board.
__________
Page1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): M/s.Deepika Murali
For Respondent(s): Mr.J.V.Sakthi Baalakrishnan,
Government Counsel for respondents
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of
Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to permit and facilitate medical
termination of petitioner’s daughter’s pregnancy in accordance with law,
including Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, on the
basis of the opinion of the Competent Medical Board.
2. Petitioner is the mother and natural guardian of a 14-year-old minor
born on 27.07.2011 and a victim under the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The child was subjected to non-consensual
sexual intercourse by her uncle, accused in Crime No.36 of 2026 dated
02.07.2026 on the file of the first respondent under Sections 5(n), 5(I), 5(j)(ii),
5(i) and 6 of the POCSO Act. As a consequence of the said assault, petitioner’s
daughter became pregnant and her pregnancy came to light on 23.06.2026,
when she was found to be carrying a foetus of approximately 27 weeks’
gestation, presently assessed at approximately 28 weeks 1 day.
__________
Page2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
3. An Accident Register entry was made on 23.06.2026; and the child was
admitted to the second respondent Hospital on 26.06.2026, where she continues
as an in-patient however, the FIR came to be registered only on 02.07.2026, and
the matter was forwarded to the Child Welfare Committee only on 04.07.2026.
Tulir – Centre for the Prevention and Healing of Child Sexual Abuse was
appointed as Support Person vide suo motu Order dated 04.07.2026 of the
learned Special Court under the POCSO Act, Chennai.
4. Petitioner and her child have unequivocally expressed their consent and
desire to terminate the pregnancy. Despite her continued hospitalisation and
request to terminate the pregnancy, second respondent Hospital has not, till
date, constituted the requisite Medical Board for evaluating the request for
medical termination of pregnancy. Being a 14-year-old child and a survivor of
sexual assault, the continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave and
irreparable harm to her physical and mental health and violate her rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. It is submitted by the learned Government Counsel appearing for
respondents that a Medical Board has since been constituted and evaluation of
the medical health of the victim is being conducted, he would submit that
subject to clearance/approval by Medical Board, X would be permitted to
terminate her pregnancy.
__________
Page3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner as well as the
learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents that under similar
circumstances, this Court had permitted termination of pregnancy of a 30 week
pregnant girl (minor) in W.P.No.22374 of 2026 dated 12.06.2026 and that the
same directions may be issued in this writ petition. The said order is extracted
hereunder:
“The present writ petition is filed praying for a writ of
Mandamus to medically terminate the pregnancy of petitioner’s
daughter (hereinafter referred to as “X”) who is a minor girl
aged about 15 years and victim under the Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (referred to as “POCSO Act”).
2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that
petitioner is residing in Tiruppur and petitioner’s husband is
presently in prison in relation to a case in Town Police Station-
Pollachi. She would further submit that petitioner’s daughter is
a dependent minor and petitioner is her natural guardian. X was
subjected to non-consensual sexual intercourse by an accused
repeatedly in October and November, 2025. An FIR is
registered in Crime No.29 of 2026 dated 07.06.2026 on the file
of the 1st respondent. It is stated that the minor girl is now
pregnant and carrying a foetus with gestational age of about 29
to 30 weeks as per the antenatal USG report of the 2nd
respondent hospital dated 10.06.2026.
__________
Page4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
3. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that
petitioner had admitted her minor daughter to the 2nd
respondent hospital on 09.06.2026 and continues to remain an
in-patient. She submitted that the condition of X is stated to be
fragile and vulnerable apart from the mental trauma she is
made to suffer. It is submitted that petitioner and her minor
daughter are not inclined to go ahead with the unwanted
pregnancy.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that
“Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971”, (hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) allows medical termination of
pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner and would
further submit that in terms of Section 3(2) of the Act, pregnancy
may be terminated by a medical practitioner where the length of
pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks in case
of such categories of woman as may be prescribed by Rules. In
this regard, it may be relevant to refer to Rule 3 B(b) of the
Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, which sets out the
categories of woman who are eligible for termination of
pregnancy up to 24 weeks. The relevant portions of the Rule is
extracted hereunder:
“3B. Women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-
four weeks. –
The following categories of women shall be considered
eligible for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of
subsection (2) Section 3 of the Act, for a period of up to twenty-
four weeks, namely: –
(a) survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest;
__________
Page5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
(b) minors;
(c) change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy
(widowhood and divorce);
(d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as per
criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)];
(e) mentally ill women including mental retardation;
(f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being
incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such
physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and
(g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or
disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the
Government.]”
5. To a pointed question to the learned counsel for petitioner
that inasmuch as the Act and the Rules provides for termination of
pregnancy within 20 weeks and in case of minor up to 24 weeks.
Though X is admittedly a minor and is 29 weeks pregnant, whether it
would be permissible for medical termination of pregnancy at this
stage, learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance on the
judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.14506 of 2019 and
Crl.M.P.No.7043 of 2019 dated 19.06.2019 and submit that in case
where length of pregnancy exceeds the stipulated period, the victim
may approach the High Court which would refer the matter to a
Permanent Medical Board constituted by Government of Tamil
Nadu, and the Board would in turn examine the case and take
immediate action and would furnish a report to the High Court. The
relevant portions of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“19. In all cases, where a victim girl suffers an unwanted
__________
Page6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026pregnancy and where the length of pregnancy does not exceed 20
weeks, the victim girl need not be referred to the Medical Board
and the termination of pregnancy can be done as per the provisions
of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The victim girl should not be unnecessarily made to knock the
doors of this Court.
20. Even in cases where the length of pregnancy has
exceeded 20 weeks, the pregnancy can be terminated in
accordance with Section 5(1) of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971, immediately to save the life of the pregnant
woman and the medical practitioner forms such an opinion in good
faith. In such cases the length of pregnancy will have no relevance
and what will be relevant is only the life of the pregnant woman.
21. In all other cases where the length of pregnancy exceeds
20 weeks, the victim may approach the High Court seeking for
termination of pregnancy and at which point of time, the High
Court will refer the matter to the permanent Medical Board
constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu and which shall
examine such cases and will ensure urgent/immediate action and
submit its report to the Court, based on it the Court can take a
decision.
22. In all cases involving termination of pregnancy where a
criminal case is pending, samples will be taken for DNA test of
both mother and the conceptus (foetus and placenta) and it shall be
sent to the Forensic Laboratory through the concerned Police and
a report shall also be received from the Forensic Laboratory.
23. The various guidelines given by this Court at para 19 to
22 shall be strictly complied with by the Police and the medical
practitioners and necessary circular shall be issued in this regard__________
Page7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026by the DGP of Police and the Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of Tamil Nadu immediately.
24. This Court does not want to transfer the investigation at
this stage and the investigation conducted by the 1st respondent
shall be monitored by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,
Kilpauk and he shall ensure that the investigation progresses
effectively.”
(emphasis supplied)
6. Learned counsel for petitioner would also place reliance
on the order of this Court in W.P.No.18043 of 2022 dated
15.07.2022, wherein this Court had directed termination of
pregnancy though the victim girl therein was 28 weeks and three
days pregnant. The relevant portions of the order is extracted
hereunder:
“11. From the aforementioned decisions, it is clear that even
in cases where the length of pregnancy has exceeded 20 weeks, this
Court is having power to order for termination of pregnancy of the
victim girl on the ground of grave danger to her physical and
mental health.
12. Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
1971 deals with cases for medical termination of pregnancy
without intervention of the Court. Without intervention of the
Court, a Registered Medical Practitioner can terminate the
pregnancy in the circumstances mentioned in section 3(2) of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. While exercising
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court
has got wider powers than what is prescribed under section 3(2) of
the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 which permits the__________
Page8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026registered medical practitioner to terminate the pregnancy only
when the length of pregnancy does not exceed a maximum period
of twenty weeks. In the case on hand, the victim girl is 28 weeks +
3 days pregnant. However, considering the fact that the medical
report recommends termination of her pregnancy and after giving
due consideration to the fact that the victim girl is small statured
and is only 13 years old, this Court exercising powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got the powers to take
judicial notice of those facts and can permit termination of victim-s
pregnancy. As observed earlier, the victim is also not physically
and mentally strong to withstand the pregnancy and this Court has
taken into consideration the said factor also.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondents would bring to
the notice of this Court a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of A vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2026
Livelaw SC 160, wherein the Supreme Court allowed medical
termination of pregnancy of a 30 week pregnant girl (minor). The
relevant portions of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“15. The issues raised by the respective sides are quite
persuasive and delicate inasmuch as the arguments advanced by the
respective counsel have their own weight. But what has to be considered
in the instant case is ultimately the right of the minor child i.e. the
appellant’s daughter to continue a pregnancy which is ex facie outside
marriage and the child to be born is to a pregnant woman who is stated
to be minor. The appellant’s daughter was a minor when she conceived
and who has to face this unfortunate situation of having a pregnancy__________
Page9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026owing to a relationship that she had. The fact that presently she has
crossed eighteen years of age is an irrelevant factor.
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 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__________
Page10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026type 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.
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
__________
Page11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
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 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.
__________
Page12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
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.”
18. In the circumstances, we accept the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant.”
9. From a reading of the above judgments, the following
position would emerge:
i) 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.
ii) 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.
iii) It would be incongruous to conclude that the foetus has a
__________
Page13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
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 Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India which recognize the
right to life and liberty and particularly those of a woman.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner also expressed certain
concerns over the treatment that has been extended to the
petitioner’s daughter until now by 2 nd respondent Hospital. To
which, the learned counsel for respondents would submit that
necessary measures with regard to treatment would be taken by the
2nd respondent Hospital in this regard.
9. In the light of the above discussion, this Court keeping in
view the facts of the case and the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in the judgment referred supra is inclined to permit X to
undergo medical termination of pregnancy subject to the Medical
Board certifying that X’s health permits the same. The above
examination shall be made by the Medical Board in the 2 nd
respondent Hospital forthwith. The respondents are directed to
submit a status report before this Court on 19.06.2026, relating to
termination of pregnancy of X. It is made clear that subject to
clearance/ approval by Medical Board, X is permitted to terminate
her pregnancy. Post on 19.06.2026.”
9. In the light of the above, this Court keeping in view the facts of the
case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment referred supra
__________
Page14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
is inclined to permit X to undergo medical termination of pregnancy subject to
the Medical Board certifying that X’s health permits the same. The above
examination shall be made by the Medical Board in the 2 nd respondent Hospital
forthwith. It is made clear that subject to clearance/ approval by Medical Board,
X is permitted to terminate her pregnancy.
10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No Costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ANU
To
1. The Inspector of Police
AWPS – Washermenpet,
Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 021
2. The Director
Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecolgy and
Government hospital for Women and Children,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008
3. The State
Rep by secretary,
Health Department,
Secretairat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009
__________
Page15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 26441 of 2026
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
ANU
WP No. 26441 of 2026
and WMP.No.28914 of 2026
07-07-2026
__________
Page16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
