Karnataka issues statewide SOP for early detection and care of underage pregnancies after 16-year-old’s 32-week case

The petitioner, a 16-year-old student represented by her mother, became pregnant as a result of sexual assault and sought termination of the pregnancy.

On 4 July 2025, the High Court permitted termination subject to medical opinion; the procedure was performed, but the foetus was born alive. The petitioner did not wish to retain custody, and the child was surrendered to the Child Welfare Committee.

In view of the late detection and the approach to court after 30 weeks, the Court sought proposals for an SOP addressing early identification of underage pregnancies, access to medical care and termination, and care and adoption arrangements if a child was born alive.

Following consultations involving the State, the petitioner and the amicus curiae, the State notified the SOP by gazette on 31 July 2026.

Whether further judicial directions or adjudication were required after the State formulated and gazetted an SOP for early identification and timely response to underage pregnancies.

Whether the Court should itself convert the proposed SOP into judicial directions, or whether the State’s adoption and notification of the SOP was the appropriate course.

Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and has been invoked in relation to reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, privacy and liberty; the petitioner relied on these rights in seeking relief.

The judgment discusses the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as part of the legal framework relevant to minors’ pregnancy, access to termination, reporting, and care and protection.

The SOP also refers to Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, concerning reproductive choice and the need to harmonise POCSO reporting obligations with access to MTP services.

The Court’s central procedural approach was to engage the executive in developing and notifying a response, rather than simply converting a draft into judicial directions, where State action could provide an effective institutional framework.

The individual termination had already been carried out, and the later proceedings focused on the systemic problems revealed by the case—particularly delayed detection, barriers to timely termination, and the need for arrangements for a child born alive.

Rather than impose a court-drafted SOP, the Court facilitated consultation among the State, the petitioner and the amicus curiae, noting that implementation would ultimately depend on the responsible State agencies.

Once the State had finalised and gazetted the SOP, the Court considered that further adjudication was unnecessary.

The writ petition was disposed of.