The Madhya Pradesh High Court has affirmed that a rape survivor’s decision to continue a pregnancy, even beyond the statutory limit of twenty-four weeks, is inviolable under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgment establishes that reproductive autonomy is not contingent on gestational age or fetal abnormalities, but on the uncoerced will of the pregnant person.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from a writ petition initiated suo moto by the High Court, following a letter received from a concerned citizen. The prosecutrix, a minor at the time of the rape, was now approximately eighteen years old and carrying a pregnancy of thirty-three weeks. The rape was registered under Sections 69, 296A, 115(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 4(1) and 51/6 of the POCSO Act. The Medical Board had initially recommended termination due to the advanced gestational age, despite the absence of fetal abnormalities.
Procedural History
- January 2026: Letter received by Registrar General, treated as suo moto petition under directions from In reference (suo moto) v. State of M.P. (WP 5184 of 2025)
- January 20, 2026: Victim and her mother provided sworn statements before the Medical Board, explicitly declining termination
- January 20, 2026: Final Medical Opinion confirmed victim’s legal competence and voluntary refusal of MTP
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought direction to the Medical Board to terminate the pregnancy. The State, while not opposing the petition outright, had not contested the victim’s expressed wish. The Court, however, recognized the need to adjudicate the constitutional dimensions of the issue.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the right to continue a pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks, in the absence of fetal abnormalities, can be overridden by state authorities or medical boards when the pregnant person - especially a rape survivor - has clearly and voluntarily refused termination.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through the Court’s suo moto initiative, relied on the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and X v. State (NCT of Delhi). It was argued that bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy are fundamental rights under Article 21, and that the victim’s consent is the sole decisive factor. The petition emphasized that the MTP Act does not empower the State to compel termination, even in cases of rape.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not oppose the victim’s stated position. The Government Advocate acknowledged the victim’s statements and the Medical Board’s conclusion. No substantive counter-argument was advanced to challenge the victim’s right to continue the pregnancy. The State’s position effectively conceded the constitutional principle at stake.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous examination of the MTP Act, 2021, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on reproductive rights, and the constitutional foundations of bodily autonomy. It emphasized that the legislative intent behind the MTP Act is not to restrict choice but to ensure safe access to abortion, not to impose state paternalism.
"The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone."
The Court cited Suchita Srivastava to reaffirm that no entity, not even the State as parens patriae, can usurp the consent of a pregnant person. It further relied on X v. State (NCT of Delhi) to reject the Medical Board’s mechanical application of the twenty-four-week threshold without considering the victim’s will. The Court held that the absence of fetal abnormalities cannot justify overriding a competent adult’s decision, particularly when that decision is made in the context of trauma and coercion.
The Court also noted that the victim was legally competent as a major, had been duly counselled, and had expressed her choice freely and repeatedly. The Medical Board’s role, the Court clarified, is advisory and must defer to the individual’s autonomy.
The Verdict
The victim prevailed. The Court held that the right to continue a pregnancy is an intrinsic part of Article 21, and that consent is non-negotiable. The Court directed that no termination be performed and that the victim be provided full medical care for full-term delivery. It further mandated that the child, if born alive, remain with the mother for fifteen days for breastfeeding, after which the Child Welfare Committee may facilitate adoption, subject to legal compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent Is the Sole Determinant
- Practitioners must now treat the pregnant person’s voluntary consent as the decisive factor in all MTP cases, regardless of gestational age
- Medical Boards cannot deny termination based solely on time limits if the person seeks to continue the pregnancy
- Courts must not substitute their judgment for that of the pregnant individual, even in cases of rape or underage victims
State Cannot Act as Parens Patriae in Reproductive Decisions
- Any attempt by authorities to "protect" a victim by overriding her choice violates bodily integrity under Article 21
- Legal teams should challenge any institutional pressure or implicit coercion in counseling sessions
- Documentation of informed, uncoerced consent must be central to all MTP-related litigation
Post-Birth Welfare Protocols Are Now Mandatory
- Courts must issue clear directions regarding postnatal care, breastfeeding rights, and adoption pathways when pregnancy continues
- State authorities are obligated to ensure victim anonymity and prevent media exposure
- Child Welfare Committees must be proactively engaged to ensure lawful, trauma-informed placement
