Chhattisgarh High Court allows termination of 31-week pregnancy of minor rape victim, directing care at a higher-level hospital

The minor petitioner sought termination of a pregnancy allegedly resulting from repeated sexual assault.

An FIR had been registered under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The petitioner was initially reported to be approximately 25 weeks pregnant; following the Court’s direction, a Medical Board assessed the pregnancy at approximately 31 weeks and 6 days. The Board found a viable fetus and identified risks associated with termination, but opined that termination was feasible at a higher-level institution with appropriate specialist facilities and monitoring. It also noted that a comprehensive psychiatric assessment was unavailable at the district hospital

The petitioner, through her parent/legal guardian, sought termination under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the Court could grant relief under Article 226 permitting termination of a pregnancy beyond the statutory gestational limits, in the circumstances of a minor’s alleged sexual assault and unwanted pregnancy

2. Whether termination could be directed where the Medical Board identified risks but considered the procedure feasible at a suitably equipped higher-level institution

Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended, permits termination in specified circumstances, including where continuation poses a risk to the pregnant woman’s life or grave injury to her physical or mental health; Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) presumes grave injury to mental health where pregnancy is alleged to have resulted from rape, and Section 3(4)(a) requires written guardian consent for termination of a minor’s pregnancy.

The Court relied on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which directs courts to assess the person’s best interests, and Supreme Court decisions recognizing reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy as facets of Article 21, including X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and S v. Union of India.

It also relied on authorities permitting termination beyond 20 weeks in appropriate cases and on the principle that the absence of a statutory remedy does not foreclose constitutional relief.

The Court considered the petitioner’s minority, the allegation that the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault, her stated wish not to continue it, and the statutory presumption of grave mental injury.

The Board had not found termination medically impossible; it considered the risks manageable with specialist care at a higher-level institution.

The Court therefore balanced those risks against the physical and psychological consequences of compelling a minor victim to continue an unwanted pregnancy, and concluded that her interests and safety required referral to an appropriately equipped institution rather than refusal of relief.

The CMHO, Dhamtari, was directed to arrange the petitioner’s referral and admission to Government Medical Hospital, Raipur, where a multidisciplinary team would undertake termination in accordance with law and medical protocols, after obtaining the parent/legal guardian’s consent and explaining the procedure and risks.

The Court also directed provision of transport, pre- and post-operative care, emergency and neonatal support, counselling, and confidentiality; preservation of relevant biological material for the investigation; and submission of a compliance report within two weeks.

There was no order as to costs, and the Medical Board’s report was to remain confidential.