Gauhati High Court permits MTP for 14-year-old sexual-assault survivor, orders preservation of fetal tissue as evidence

The petitioner, mother and natural guardian of a 14-year-old minor, approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 seeking constitution of a Medical Board and permission for medical termination of the minor’s pregnancy arising from alleged successive penetrative sexual assaults.

The minor’s date of birth was recorded as 14 May 2012, and she was studying in Class IX.

In connection with the alleged assaults, Bongaigaon P.S. Case No. 127/2026 was registered under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012; investigation was pending.

An obstetric report dated 20 June 2026 recorded a live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 18 weeks and 4 days.

On 2 July 2026, the Court directed examination of the minor by a Medical Board at Barpeta Medical College & Hospital.

The five-member Medical Board subsequently found the minor medically fit for MTP, recorded that continuation of the pregnancy was likely to cause grave mental and physical injury, and noted that the minor and her mother were unwilling to continue the pregnancy.

The hospital confirmed that the procedure could be performed there and that the product of conception could be preserved and forwarded for forensic examination.

1. Whether, in view of the minor’s age, alleged sexual assault, gestational age, medical condition, and unwillingness to continue the pregnancy, she should be permitted to undergo Medical Termination of Pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended.

2. Whether directions should be issued for the minor’s informed consent and medical care, and for the collection, preservation, sealing, documentation, and forensic examination of the terminal foetus and other biological material relevant to the pending criminal investigation.

3. Whether the State should bear the medical, transportation, and post-operative expenses and provide necessary support for the minor’s safety and welfare.

The Court applied Sections 3, 3(2), 3(2B), 3(2D), 3(3), 4(a), and 5(1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended.

Section 3 permits termination where continuation of pregnancy risks grave physical or mental injury, and Explanation 2 presumes the anguish caused by a pregnancy alleged to have resulted from rape to constitute grave injury to the pregnant woman’s mental health.

Section 4(a) requires the written consent of the guardian for termination of a minor’s pregnancy, while the minor’s own wishes remain an important consideration in decisions concerning reproductive autonomy.

The Court relied on Suchita Srivastava v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2009) 9 SCC 1, for the principle that reproductive choice is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and that the pregnant person’s consent is paramount.

It further relied on A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 INSC 371, for the principle that the safety and welfare of the minor are the controlling considerations and that her wishes must be considered alongside those of her guardian.

XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573, recognising that pregnancy resulting from sexual assault may cause compounded physical and psychological trauma.

Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India, (2020) 19 SCC 806, permitting termination of a minor survivor’s pregnancy in accordance with the Medical Board’s opinion.

The Court found that the material circumstances justified termination: the minor was allegedly a victim of penetrative sexual assault, the Medical Board unanimously certified her medical fitness for the procedure, continuation of the pregnancy was likely to aggravate her mental and physical injury, and both the minor and her mother expressed unwillingness to continue it.

Applying the MTP Act and the Supreme Court’s emphasis on reproductive autonomy, the minor’s welfare, and the psychological consequences of rape-related pregnancy, the Court held that permitting MTP was in her best interest.

Since the pending criminal investigation could require biological evidence, the Court balanced the minor’s medical and privacy interests with evidentiary requirements by directing collection and preservation of the terminal foetus and other biological materials in accordance with medical protocol and chain-of-custody safeguards.

The Court permitted termination of the minor’s pregnancy at Barpeta Medical College & Hospital, preferably on 17 July 2026 or on the nearest medically feasible date, by an expert medical team.

The minor and her mother were to be informed of the relevant medical risks and obtain requisite informed consent; appropriate specialists, medical facilities, and post-operative care were to be provided.

The police were directed to facilitate safe transportation of the minor and her parents, receive the terminal foetus and biological materials under proper seal and documentation, and forward them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Guwahati while maintaining the chain of custody.

The State was directed to bear all procedure-related and medical expenses and to provide further medical care required for the minor’s safety and welfare.