Introduction:
In a sensitive and emotionally charged case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Vishal Mishra, declined to grant permission for the termination of a nine-month pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor, observing that the fetus was in a “live condition” and any termination at this advanced stage would endanger the life of the minor. The matter arose from a suo motu cognizance taken by the High Court after receiving a letter addressed to the Registrar General on September 29, 2025, highlighting the plight of the survivor. Following the established judicial guidelines laid down in the earlier case of In Reference (Suo Motu), where the Court had set standard procedures for termination of pregnancies both up to and beyond 24 weeks in cases of rape and sexual assault, the bench undertook a detailed examination of the facts, medical evidence, and the willingness of the survivor and her family. Ultimately, the Court, while recognizing the trauma endured by the minor, held that at the gestational age of 36 weeks, the pregnancy had advanced to such a stage that medical termination was neither permissible under law nor medically feasible. Consequently, the Court directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Satna, to take custody of the child within 15 days of its birth and to ensure that every measure of care, caution, and affection is extended for the child’s upbringing in accordance with law.
Arguments and Submissions on Behalf of the State:
The case, registered as Prosecutrix X v. State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-40010-2025], was presented before the Court with Government Advocate Sumit Raghuwanshi appearing for the State. The State submitted that the case was taken up suo motu in adherence to the High Court’s prior directions that required judicial intervention in instances where termination of pregnancy of rape survivors, especially minors, is sought beyond the statutory limit. The learned Government Advocate informed the Court that pursuant to the medical examination conducted by the Medical Board, Satna, the fetus was found to be at an advanced stage of 36 weeks gestation, indicating that the pregnancy had reached full term and the fetus was alive and viable.
The State further pointed out that according to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks can only be considered under exceptional circumstances, primarily if there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother or if the fetus suffers from severe abnormalities incompatible with life. In the present case, however, the medical report did not indicate any such abnormality or condition that justified termination. The State emphasized that proceeding with termination at this stage would likely result in severe physical complications or even death for the minor survivor. Therefore, the medical opinion firmly advised against termination.
Additionally, the State presented the report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Satna, which contained the statements of both the survivor and her father. In their deposition, they clearly expressed their unwillingness to terminate the pregnancy due to the inherent danger to the survivor’s life but also stated that they did not wish to retain custody of the child after its birth. Instead, they consented to the baby being handed over to the State for appropriate care and adoption through legal procedures. The Government Advocate, therefore, urged the Court to accept the medical and welfare reports and issue necessary directions for the custody and welfare of the child upon birth, in consonance with the welfare provisions under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Consideration and Observations of the Court:
Justice Vishal Mishra, after perusing the reports of the Medical Board and the CWC, and considering the statements made by the survivor and her father, observed that the request for medical termination was untenable at such an advanced stage of pregnancy. The Court observed that when a fetus has reached a live condition—that is, capable of survival outside the womb—termination of pregnancy becomes not only legally impermissible but also ethically and medically hazardous. The Court underscored that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution extends to both the mother and the unborn child once viability is established. Therefore, termination at such a late stage would amount to a grave risk to the survivor’s life and would be contrary to both medical and humanitarian principles.
In a compassionate yet reasoned approach, the Court balanced the reproductive autonomy of the survivor with the preservation of life. The bench referred to the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, where the apex court had underscored that the consent and choice of the pregnant person must remain paramount in all matters concerning reproductive rights and decisions regarding termination of pregnancy. However, the High Court clarified that such autonomy must operate within the limits of medical feasibility and legal permissibility. Justice Mishra noted that the survivor and her father had themselves indicated their unwillingness to pursue termination owing to the danger involved, which further reinforced the Court’s decision.
The Court took judicial notice of its earlier precedent in In Reference (Suo Motu), where it had framed comprehensive guidelines for cases involving termination of pregnancies resulting from rape, particularly distinguishing between pregnancies up to 24 weeks and those beyond 24 weeks. The Court reiterated that once the pregnancy surpasses the 24-week threshold, the power to authorize termination rests solely on the recommendation of a competent medical board and must consider both maternal and fetal viability. In this case, since the fetus was at 36 weeks, it had reached full term, making termination medically and ethically impermissible.
Justice Mishra observed that while the Court deeply sympathized with the agony of the survivor, it could not permit termination that would endanger her life. Instead, the focus had to shift towards ensuring her physical safety, mental well-being, and rehabilitation. The Court emphasized that State authorities bear a moral and constitutional responsibility to safeguard the rights of such victims and to ensure that the unwanted child, once born, is cared for with dignity and compassion.
Directions of the Court:
Having reached the conclusion that termination was not feasible, the Court issued specific directions aimed at securing the welfare of both the survivor and the newborn child. The Court directed that the child would remain with the mother for 15 days following birth, after which the Child Welfare Committee, Satna, was instructed to assume custody. The Committee was further directed to ensure that every aspect of the child’s welfare, including healthcare, nutrition, and emotional nurturing, is duly addressed.
The Court also granted liberty to the CWC to facilitate adoption proceedings in accordance with law if any willing family came forward or to hand over the child to the State Government’s care institutions for further protection. The Court directed that these steps be taken in strict compliance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and other relevant child welfare statutes.
Furthermore, the Court stressed the need for psychological counselling and rehabilitation for the survivor, acknowledging that the trauma of sexual assault compounded by forced motherhood can have long-lasting emotional repercussions. The authorities were advised to ensure that the survivor receives proper counselling, educational support, and a safe environment conducive to her recovery and reintegration into society.
Justice Mishra observed that this case serves as a reminder of the complex intersection of law, medicine, ethics, and human rights that courts must navigate when dealing with pregnancies arising from sexual assault. The Court reiterated that while the law recognizes the reproductive autonomy of women, including minors, such autonomy cannot be exercised to the extent of causing fatal harm to the pregnant person. Hence, when the fetus is viable and termination endangers the mother, the path of compassion, safety, and welfare must prevail.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the above directions, emphasizing that the State and its agencies must act promptly, sensitively, and with the highest degree of empathy to protect both the survivor and the child. The order concluded with a reaffirmation of the Court’s earlier stance that judicial intervention in such matters must balance the right to choose with the right to life, ensuring that neither is compromised unjustly.