Xxx vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2026

    0
    7
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

    Xxx vs The State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2026

    Author: Sameer Jain

    Bench: Sameer Jain

    [2026:RJ-JP:31437]
    
            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                           AT JODHPUR
    
                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14408/2026
                           CNR: RJHC010662972026
                           URN: CW / 26285U / 2026
    
    Xxx,
                                                                         ----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 Jodhpur.
    3.       The Superintendent, Dr. Sampurnanand Medical College,
             Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
    4.       The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur City, Rajasthan.
                                                                      ----Respondents
    
    
    For Petitioner(s)          :     Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
    For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
                                     Dr. Shiv Prakash Paliwal
                                     Dr. Divya Gehlot
    
    
    
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

    Order

    14/07/2026

    SPONSORED

    1. Petitioner has filed this present petition through her natural

    guardian/ mother, for termination of pregnancy undergone for a

    gestational period of 27 weeks (plus minus five days) as per the

    medical report.

    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the

    provisions of MTP Act. It is submitted that petitioner is a rape

    victim aged approximately 15 years. It is submitted that an FIR

    No. 237/2026 is registered at Police Station Kudi Bhagtasni, Dist.

    (Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 10:36:10 AM)
    (Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:29:09 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:31437] (2 of 5) [CW-14408/2026]

    Jodhpur (West) for the offence under Sections 65(1) of BNS, 2023

    and Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 5(q) and 6 of the POCSO Act.

    3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also furnished a

    Medical Board (constituted at Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur) opinion

    with the forwarded letter dated 11.07.2026, wherein following

    opinion is opined and the same reads as under:

    “According to Ultrasound Obstetrics Miss ‘P”

    is having pregnancy of 27 weeks 4 days.

    Blood investigation report shows her
    hemoglobin is 10.1 gm/dl, Platelets- 1.99
    lac/mm^3. As per USG Single live fetus of
    27 weeks 4 days, fetus is viable and fetal
    weight is 1145 gm. & if pregnancy is
    terminated at this stage, the baby is likely
    to be born alive bearing all the
    consequences of prematurity & may need
    prolonged NICU care. The female bears the
    intrinsic risk of induction failure & operative
    interventions at this period of gestation.

    Dr. Divya Gehlot Dr. Shiv Prakash Paliwal Dr. Arshad
    Senior Resident Medical Officer Medical Officer
    Dept. of OBGY” Dept. of Pediatrics Dept. of Radiology”

    4. Learned counsel for the respondents have fairly conceded

    the contentions noted herein, however has submitted that the

    parents of the victim ought to submit an undertaking before the

    concerned Hospital, as per the Medical requirements, as the

    procedure which is now to be opted is not of termination of

    pregnancy but an endeavor to have a safe delivery/ pre-mature

    delivery.

    5. Having heard the counsel representing the parties, upon

    carrying an interaction with the doctors present in the Court, who

    have cautiously averred that termination of pregnancy at this

    stage shall bear grave consequences upon the victim-mother as

    well as the unborn, as the health, and medical conditions of the

    (Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 10:36:10 AM)
    (Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:29:09 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:31437] (3 of 5) [CW-14408/2026]

    mother are to be constantly monitored (having HgB @ below 11

    and featus position as ‘breech’) taking note of the provisions of

    MTP Act, which bars termination of pregenacy above the

    gestational period above 20 weeks (relevant extract of which are

    reproduced hereinbelow), and upon a perusal of the medical

    opinion (placed on record) which states that the fetus as on date

    is approximately of 27 weeks and 4 days and the female bears an

    intrinsic risk of induction failure and operative interventions if

    termination is practiced at this period of gestation; that the

    petitioner herein is a rape victim, belonging to a humble

    background; that relying upon the ratio encapsulated in A

    (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in

    2024 INSC 371, (2022) SCC Online SC 1231: “X” vs. Health

    and Family Welfare Department and A (Mother of X) Vs.

    State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in 2026 LiveLaw

    (SC) 160 and provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India

    and the fact that the medical opinion states of high risk in carrying

    out termination of pregnancy, this Court is inclined to dispose of

    the present petition, with a direction/expectation that the

    pregnancy at this stage is not permitted/need not to be

    terminated. However, the parents/guardians of the victim shall

    serve the requisite under taking, as it is opined that the

    termination of the present pregnancy might have potential risk

    and warrant surgical intervention, as pregnancy is 27 weeks and 4

    days with breech position.

    “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

    (Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 10:36:10 AM)
    (Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:29:09 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:31437] (4 of 5) [CW-14408/2026]

    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.”

    6. Accordingly, this Court directs the Superintendent, Umaid

    Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan to proceed with the procedure qua

    the petitioner as deemed medically necessitated, as per the

    provisions of MTP Act, and not to permit termination of pregnancy

    at this stage. Additionally, it is directed as follows:

    6.1 Taking note of the fact that the state is parens patriae,

    meaning thereby parent of the country, the respondents are

    directed to provide the victim with all necessary care, nutritious

    food and medical attendance before and after the delivery.

    6.2 Superintendent, Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan is

    directed to ensure that all medical facilities are made available to

    the victim before and after delivery, without payment of any fee,

    charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery

    takes place in a safe environment.

    6.3 The identity of victim shall be maintained at all stages

    and her identity shall not be disclosed in the course of

    hospitalization, treatment and admission.

    6.4 The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA)

    as well as District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), concerned are

    (Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 10:36:10 AM)
    (Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:29:09 PM)
    [2026:RJ-JP:31437] (5 of 5) [CW-14408/2026]

    directed to pay suitable amount of compensation to the victim in

    terms of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Victim

    Compensation Scheme, 2011, within a period of three months

    from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the

    amount of compensation be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of

    the victim for a period of two years.

    6.5 If the guardian of the victim deems it appropriate,

    requisite arrangements be made at the shelter home/ Balika Grah

    concerned for stay, accommodation of the victim, if need so

    arises.

    6.6. Needless to say the decision of whether to give the

    child up for adoption is entirely that of the guardian/parents of the

    victim herein. It is made clear that if the petitioner herein opts for

    adoption for the child, the concerned Child Welfare Committee

    shall render due assistance.

    7. In view of the above, and in view of the undertaking and

    submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

    the petitioner/guardian (as appointed through legal aid services),

    the present petition is disposed of, with above noted directions.

    Copy of Medical Report dated 11.07.2026 is taken on record.

    Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.

    (SAMEER JAIN),J
    s-257/DEEPAK

    (Uploaded on 16/07/2026 at 10:36:10 AM)
    (Downloaded on 16/07/2026 at 06:29:09 PM)

    Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here