Ultimate decision rests with her: Madhya Pradesh High Court allows 13-year-old rape survivor to terminate 29-week pregnancy

The post operative care up to the extent required, will be extended to the petitioner, directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court. (Image enhanced using AI)

Safeguards to protect health, evidence

• A specialised team of doctors shall take a decision regarding termination of pregnancy.
• The procedure of termination of pregnancy will be carried out in the presence of the expert team of doctors.
• The expert doctors will explain to the family members as well as the petitioner the risk of getting the termination of her pregnancy and also other factors.
• Every care and caution will be taken by the doctors while terminating the pregnancy.
• All medical attention and other medical facilities including that of a presence of a pediatrician as well as a radiologist and other required doctors will be made available to her.
• The post operative care up to the extent required, will be extended to the petitioner.
• It will be the duty of the state government to take care of the child, if born alive.
• The doctors will also ensure that a sample from the fetus is protected for DNA examination and as and when required will be handed over to the prosecution for use in the criminal case itself.
• All necessary care and caution be taken by the doctors while carrying out the procedure for termination of pregnancy.
• Considering the finding of the medical board, the hospital and its medical team would take care to ensure sensitive treatment and handling of the petitioner in connection with all procedures, whether medical or administrative, keeping her emotional and mental health at the forefront.
• The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), generally permits termination up to 24 weeks for specified categories of women.
• Clause (4) (b) of Section 3 of the MTP Act clearly provides, “… no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman”.
• Beyond that, termination is tightly regulated.
• Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the court reiterated that reproductive choice is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21, embedded within privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity.
• It further cited X v. principal secretary, health and family welfare department and X v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Supreme Court emphasised that 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.

Child survivor, criminal case, advanced pregnancy

• The survivor, a 13-year-old girl, was allegedly sexually assaulted.
• An FIR was registered at police station Khurai in Sagar district under multiple serious provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the POCSO Act, and the SC/ST Act.
• During a medical examination, it emerged that the child was pregnant.
• By the time the matter reached the high court, the pregnancy had crossed 28 weeks, a stage at which termination becomes legally and medically complex.
• The case, therefore, placed the court at the intersection of statutory restrictions, medical risk, and the lived reality of a minor rape survivor.

Medical board: Mini labour, high risk

• A medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) committee at Bundelkhand Medical College, Sagar, examined the survivor on February 7, 2026.
• Its findings were clinically precise but morally weighty.
• Gestational age was found approximately 29 weeks and 1 day.
• No detectable congenital abnormality.
• Haemoglobin level: 9.6 gm/dl.
• Teenage pregnancy was categorised as high-risk by the board.
• The board observed that abortion at this stage is medically akin to “mini labour,” with complications similar to full-term delivery, risks that are “probable, unpredictable and many times unpreventable,” especially in teenage pregnancies.
• Importantly, the board recorded that the survivor was “not eager to continue the pregnancy” and did not appear mature enough to care for a child .
• While noting that a fetus beyond 28 weeks ordinarily cannot be “terminated” but can be “delivered,” the board left the final determination to the court, acknowledging that legal permission would be required.

Question of consent

• The court noted that statements of both the survivor and her parents were recorded, and written consent for termination was given on February 6.
• In cases involving minors, courts are often required to balance parental involvement with the autonomy of the child.
• The court recognised that the survivor, though legally a minor, was the person who would bear the physical and psychological consequences of continuing the pregnancy.
• The court also referred to “other family aspects” that must be considered, a subtle but important acknowledgment of social stigma, emotional trauma, and the long-term impact of forced motherhood on a 13-year-old.