At 27 weeks and 6 days, Madhya Pradesh High Court permits termination of rape survivor’s pregnancy, directs preservation of fetal DNA evidence

The petitioner, Victim X, represented through her legal guardian, sought permission for termination of a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault.

Pursuant to the Court’s earlier order, the victim was examined by the Medical Board of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, MTH Hospital, MGMMC, Indore.

The Board’s report dated 8 September 2026 stated that termination was medically possible and recommended, notwithstanding that the pregnancy had advanced to 27 weeks and 6 days.

The Court also considered the standard operating procedures prescribed by the Division Bench in In Re: (Suo Motu) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 5184 of 2025, concerning termination of pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks in cases of rape or sexual assault.

Whether the High Court should grant permission for termination of the victim’s pregnancy at 27 weeks and 6 days, notwithstanding the statutory 24-week limit ordinarily applicable under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy framework?

Whether the termination should be subject to medical safeguards, including verification of the victim’s physical and mental fitness, preservation of fetal DNA evidence, and compliance with the prescribed SOPs?

The Court considered Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which regulates termination according to the length of pregnancy, and Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, which identifies categories—including survivors of sexual assault, rape or incest and minors—eligible for termination up to 24 weeks.

It relied on the Division Bench’s SOPs in In Re: (Suo Motu) v. State of Madhya Pradesh, which require prompt medical assessment, judicial consideration in pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, performance by an expert medical team, post-operative care, preservation of fetal samples for DNA examination, and protection of the victim’s privacy.

The Court also applied the Supreme Court’s reasoning in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433, that reproductive autonomy includes access to safe and legal abortion and that the woman is the ultimate decision-maker concerning termination of pregnancy; Article 21 protects her right to terminate pregnancy where her physical or mental health is at stake.

The Medical Board expressly found that termination was medically possible and appropriate despite the pregnancy being 27 weeks and 6 days.

Although the statutory provisions and Rule 3B ordinarily address pregnancies up to 24 weeks, the Court treated the Board’s opinion, the victim’s status as a survivor of sexual assault, the constitutional protection of reproductive autonomy, and the applicable High Court SOPs as sufficient grounds to exercise its jurisdiction and grant permission.

To balance the victim’s health and autonomy with medical and evidentiary concerns, the Court required fresh verification of her physical and mental fitness, performance of the procedure by the concerned doctors, compliance with the SOPs, and preservation of fetal DNA and other relevant material for the criminal investigation.

It directed the concerned doctors to conduct the procedure after fresh verification of the victim’s physical and mental fitness, preferably within one or two days, while complying with the SOPs and ensuring preservation of fetal DNA samples and other forensic material for the criminal case.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be supplied to the State for compliance.