01Facts
The petitioner, mother of a 14-year-and-6-month-old girl who was the victim of sexual offences, sought permission to terminate the girl’s pregnancy.
The Medical Board at Shri Krishna Hospital, Karamsad, assessed the pregnancy at 28 weeks and 4 days and reported that termination could be risky, requiring directions from the High Court
p. 4The Sessions Judge and Special Judge (POCSO), Anand, had rejected the application for termination on 27 October 2026.
The petitioner challenged that order and sought permission for termination with medical, forensic, and psychosocial safeguards
pp. 1–402Issues
i.1. Whether the High Court should set aside the Sessions Court’s rejection and permit termination of the minor victim’s pregnancy, notwithstanding its advanced gestational stage and the reported medical risks
pp. 3–4, 11ii.2. Whether termination should be subject to directions addressing medical safety, preservation of forensic evidence, and the victim’s and any live-born infant’s care
pp. 2–3, 11–1303Law Applied
The Court relied on Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution, treating reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and decisional privacy as aspects of personal liberty, and recognising the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction to grant relief where statutory remedies under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) are unavailable
pp. 5–10It applied the principles in S v. The Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No. 14454 of 2026 (24 April 2026), including that the pregnant woman’s welfare and choice must be considered and that the absence of a statutory remedy does not foreclose constitutional relief
pp. 5–10It also referred to X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, on reproductive autonomy, and A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others, Civil Appeal No. 827 of 2026, concerning termination of a minor’s 30-week pregnancy
pp. 8–9The Court’s order required termination to proceed only after a unanimous medical opinion that it could be carried out safely without endangering the victim’s life.
p. 12Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 64Section 65Section 351
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 2Section 4Section 5Section 6
04Reasoning
Considering the victim’s age, the circumstances of the pregnancy, and the Medical Board’s assessment of the advanced gestational age and associated risks, the Court applied the cited constitutional principles to prioritise the victim’s best interests
pp. 3–4, 11It allowed termination but conditioned the procedure on informed consent, specialist assessment, and a unanimous medical opinion that it could be performed safely.
pp. 11–13It also directed preservation and transfer of fetal tissue for DNA analysis, post-operative care and psychological support, and contingency measures for the care of an infant if born alive
pp. 11–1305Holding
The High Court allowed the petition and permitted termination, subject to the prescribed medical safeguards.
pp. 11–14It directed the hospital to obtain the victim’s written undertaking, convene a specialist Medical Board, and proceed urgently only on a unanimous opinion that termination could be safely performed without endangering her life.
pp. 11–14The Court also ordered forensic preservation and transfer of samples, post-operative care, support and compensation measures, and arrangements for an infant born alive if the victim declined custody.
pp. 11–14The petition was disposed of, and the judgment was directed to be transmitted to the relevant authorities for compliance
pp. 11–14Original Court PDF
PRIYANKABEN W/O SANJAYBHAI MAFATBHAI RATHODvsSTATE OF GUJARAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
