A landmark directive from the Bombay High Court has affirmed that minors who become pregnant as a result of sexual assault may seek termination beyond the statutory 24-week limit, provided a duly constituted Medical Board evaluates the medical necessity. The judgment underscores the primacy of bodily autonomy and the state’s duty to facilitate timely access to safe abortion services in cases of grave violation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, a guardian of a 16-year-old minor girl, sought permission to terminate a pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks. The pregnancy resulted from a sexual assault that led to the registration of an FIR under Sections 64(2)(m), 64(2)(i), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 4, 8, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Sonography conducted on 30 January 2026 confirmed fetal age at 29 weeks and 2 days.
Procedural History
- The minor’s mother, acting as guardian, filed the writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking permission for termination.
- The respondents, Central Hospital Ulhasnagar and the State, did not oppose the petition but highlighted the procedural hurdle posed by the 24-week limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
- No prior application had been made to a Medical Board, as the case was brought directly to the High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration permitting termination of the pregnancy, invoking the Supreme Court’s precedents recognizing the rights of survivors of sexual assault to access abortion beyond the statutory limit when medical conditions warrant it.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a minor victim of sexual assault, carrying a fetus beyond 24 weeks, can be permitted to terminate the pregnancy without mandatory prior approval from a Medical Board, and whether the court may direct the constitution of such a board as an immediate remedy.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (2022) and Supriyo v. Union of India (2023), arguing that the right to bodily autonomy under Article 21 extends to survivors of sexual assault, and that delay in accessing abortion services due to procedural barriers violates constitutional rights. The petitioner emphasized that the minor’s trauma and medical vulnerability necessitated urgent intervention.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Government Pleader acknowledged the gravity of the case but noted that Section 3B of the MTP Act requires a Medical Board’s opinion for termination beyond 24 weeks. The State contended that the court should not bypass statutory procedure but agreed that the minor’s circumstances warranted expedited review.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Section 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on reproductive rights in cases of sexual violence. It held that while statutory procedure must be followed, rigid adherence to timelines cannot override the constitutional imperative to protect the dignity and health of a minor survivor.
"The state’s obligation to protect the bodily integrity of a minor survivor of sexual assault cannot be deferred by procedural formalities when the very purpose of the law is to ensure access to safe and timely medical care."
The Court distinguished X v. Health Department by noting that in this case, the victim was a minor, the assault was documented by FIR, and the pregnancy was the direct consequence of a criminal act. The Court emphasized that the Medical Board’s role is not to judge the credibility of the survivor but to assess medical feasibility.
It further held that the High Court has inherent powers under Article 226 to direct immediate constitution of a Medical Board where delay would cause irreparable harm. The Court rejected the notion that the absence of a prior application disqualifies the petition, noting that the petition itself served as the trigger for statutory compliance.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks is permissible for minor survivors of sexual assault upon a Medical Board’s assessment, and directed immediate constitution of such a board at Civil Hospital, Thane. The report must be submitted in a sealed envelope to the Court by 16 February 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Board Assessment Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary
- Practitioners must now treat the constitution of a Medical Board as a non-negotiable procedural step in all cases involving pregnancies beyond 24 weeks arising from sexual assault.
- Failure to constitute a board within 48 hours of petition filing may attract contempt proceedings under Article 226.
Minor Survivors Are Entitled to Expedited Review
- Courts must prioritize such petitions on first board listing.
- Guardians need not wait for police or child welfare committee clearance before approaching the High Court.
- The FIR alone, coupled with medical evidence, suffices to trigger the Medical Board mechanism.
Documentation Must Be Sealed and Confidential
- All medical reports, including sonography and psychological evaluations, must be submitted in sealed envelopes to protect the minor’s identity.
- Any breach of confidentiality by hospital staff may constitute a violation of Section 22 of the POCSO Act.
