In a sensitive case involving a minor sexual assault survivor, the Karnataka High Court permitted medical termination of a 25-week pregnancy, well beyond the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court relied on a Medical Board's expert opinion that the procedure would be medically safe, while issuing comprehensive directions for the victim's care, counselling, and compensation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a minor girl aged 12 years (petitioner No. 2) and her mother (petitioner No. 1), approached the Karnataka High Court seeking permission for medical termination of the minor's pregnancy. The pregnancy was alleged to be the consequence of sexual assault, attracting the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The minor's pregnancy had advanced to 25 weeks, exceeding the statutory limit for termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).
Key Facts
- The minor victim (petitioner No. 2) is a 12-year-old student
- The pregnancy is alleged to be the result of sexual assault under the POCSO Act
- The gestational age of the pregnancy is 25 weeks, beyond the statutory limit for termination under the MTP Act
- The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus
- The relief sought was permission to terminate the pregnancy through respondent No. 2 (BIMS Hospital, Ballari) or any registered medical practitioner
Procedural History
- 17.06.2026: The High Court directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to constitute a Medical Board to examine the minor and submit a report on the feasibility of termination
- 18.06.2026: The Medical Board submitted its report, opining that medical termination of pregnancy could be considered
- 19.06.2026: The High Court delivered the present judgment allowing the writ petition
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Permission for medical termination of the minor's 25-week pregnancy
- Directions to the respondents to facilitate the procedure in a safe and legal manner
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks under the MTP Act could be permitted in the case of a minor sexual assault survivor, where a Medical Board opines that the procedure is medically safe and viable.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- The pregnancy was the result of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, and continuation would cause severe physical and psychological trauma to the minor
- The MTP Act allows termination up to 24 weeks for survivors of sexual assault, but the minor's pregnancy had exceeded this limit due to delays in seeking legal recourse
- Constitutional Courts have entertained petitions for termination beyond statutory limits where medical opinion supports the procedure, as seen in X v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC 453
- The Medical Board's report dated 18.06.2026 opined that termination was medically safe
For the Respondents
- The pregnancy had advanced to 25 weeks, beyond the statutory limit under Section 3 of the MTP Act, and the foetus was viable with neonatal care
- Section 5 of the MTP Act permits termination beyond the prescribed limit only to save the life of the pregnant woman, which was not the case here
- The Court must balance the right to life of the foetus with the medical risks to the minor, as held in X v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2506
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal framework governing medical termination of pregnancy in India, particularly the MTP Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The Court noted:
"Under Section 3 of the Act, pregnancy may ordinarily be terminated up to 20 weeks on the opinion of one registered medical practitioner and up to 24 weeks on the opinion of two registered medical practitioners for certain categories of women, which include survivors of sexual assault and minors."
The Court observed that Section 5 of the MTP Act provides an exception for termination beyond the prescribed limit only when it is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. However, the Court relied on judicial precedents where constitutional Courts have permitted termination beyond statutory limits based on medical opinion, particularly in cases involving risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman or severe foetal abnormalities.
The Court placed significant emphasis on the Medical Board's report dated 18.06.2026, which opined that termination at the 25-week stage could be safely undertaken without posing serious medical risks to the minor. The Court held:
"When such a clear and categorical medical opinion is placed on record, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot disregard the expert medical assessment."
The Court acknowledged the traumatic circumstances of the case, including the minor's status as a survivor of sexual assault under the POCSO Act. However, it emphasized that the paramount consideration must be the safety and survival of the victim. The Court noted that at 25 weeks, the pregnancy had crossed the stage of abortion and would essentially amount to preterm delivery, which the Medical Board confirmed could be safely performed.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- The respondent-hospital (BIMS Hospital, Ballari) shall ensure continuous medical supervision and appropriate antenatal care for the minor until delivery
- The hospital shall take all necessary precautions to ensure safe delivery and neonatal care
- The District Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit shall extend counselling, psychological assistance, and rehabilitation support to the minor
- The State of Karnataka shall ensure that the minor is extended the benefit of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme and other welfare measures available under law
- If the minor or her guardians express unwillingness to raise the child after birth, the Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate steps for the child's care and adoption in accordance with law
- The hospital shall preserve relevant medical evidence for the purposes of criminal proceedings under the POCSO Act
- The directions shall be communicated forthwith to the concerned respondents
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Opinion is Determinative Beyond Statutory Limits
- Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 may permit termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks under the MTP Act, provided a competent Medical Board opines that the procedure is medically safe
- The expert medical assessment carries significant weight, and Courts are unlikely to disregard a clear and categorical opinion from a duly constituted Medical Board
- Practitioners should ensure that petitions for termination beyond statutory limits are accompanied by detailed medical reports from reputable medical institutions
Comprehensive Victim Support is Mandatory
- Courts are increasingly issuing holistic directions for the care and rehabilitation of minor sexual assault survivors, even when termination is not permitted
- Key directions include:
- Continuous medical supervision and antenatal care
- Counselling and psychological support
- Rehabilitation and compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme
- Preservation of medical evidence for criminal proceedings
- Steps for adoption if the victim is unwilling to raise the child
- Practitioners should plead for comprehensive relief beyond mere permission for termination, including support services for the victim
Balancing Foetal Viability and Victim's Rights
- At advanced gestational stages (e.g., 25 weeks), the viability of the foetus becomes a critical factor, and Courts may permit termination only if the Medical Board confirms the procedure is safe
- The right to life of the foetus is balanced against the physical and psychological trauma to the victim, particularly in cases of sexual assault
- Courts are unlikely to permit termination where the Medical Board opines that the procedure poses serious medical risks to the pregnant woman, even in cases of sexual assault or foetal abnormalities
