“Every Moment Is Of Considerable Significance”: MP High Court Allows Minor’s Abortion Beyond 26 Weeks
The MP High Court at Gwalior allowed a 14-year-old POCSO survivor to terminate her 26-week pregnancy and directed trial courts to send a Medical Board report with every such request.
Madhya Pradesh HC Permits Medical Termination of Pregnancy of 14-Year-Old POCSO Survivor
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has allowed the medical termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, aged about 14 years, who is carrying a pregnancy of approximately 26 weeks and one day, observing that the Court “cannot lose sight of the age of the minor, the circumstances in which the pregnancy has occurred, the trauma suffered by her and the mental agony which she is presently facing.”
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the order on November 7, 2026, in a reference from a Special Judge (POCSO) in Shivpuri district. According to material from the Child Welfare Committee, Shivpuri, the girl is a victim of an offence registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
As the pregnancy had crossed 24 weeks, the matter came before the High Court. The Court noted that a Division Bench, in In Reference (Suo Motu) vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, had held that the High Court may exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases.
On November 6, the Court called for a specific report from the Medical Board at Kamlaraja Hospital and G.R. Medical College, Gwalior, on the feasibility and safety of termination. The Board’s first report said termination could be undertaken with appropriate facilities, provided all investigation reports were normal. The Court found it wanting, observing that the report “does not contain any clear and categorical opinion as to whether termination of the pregnancy is medically permissible in the present case.” It directed the Government Advocate to seek clarification.
A second report followed the same day. The Board found the ECHO report normal and opined that the procedure could be carried out after ensuring the availability of blood. The Court held that this report “contains a specific medical opinion regarding the feasibility of termination of pregnancy” and “lends support to the prayer made.”
The Court also considered Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 5(1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, including the statutory presumption of mental anguish caused by pregnancy resulting from rape. It said it was “conscious of the fact that, in the present case, the pregnancy is beyond 26 weeks,” but weighed this against the minor’s trauma and future. Concluding that “the prayer made deserves to be allowed,” it issued detailed safeguards.
The Dean or Medical Superintendent must constitute a team of senior doctors from Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Anaesthesia, Medicine and Paediatrics. The team is to undertake the procedure on November 7 at 4:00 PM, subject to the minor being found fit beforehand, after re-examining her, particularly her haemoglobin level, and taking steps to reduce the risk of excessive bleeding.
The procedure must be performed at a hospital equipped for emergency treatment, blood transfusion, anaesthesia, intensive care and neonatal care. The minor and her parents or natural guardian must be counselled about the risks and consent must be obtained in accordance with law. If the child is born alive, neonatal care must be provided. The doctors who gave their opinions will have immunity from liability arising from the procedure.
The medical team must also preserve records and samples, including DNA samples if required, for the criminal case. The Court stressed that the “identity, confidentiality and dignity of the minor shall be strictly maintained,” and sought a confidential compliance report.
Before disposing of the petition, the Court directed all trial courts to annex a specific Medical Board report on the victim’s condition, gestational age and the feasibility of termination whenever such a request is forwarded. Stressing urgency, it said “even a delay of a single day may have serious and irreversible consequences for the victim, both medically and legally.”
The order has been circulated to the Registrar General, High Court Benches, district courts and the Advocate General’s office. Government Advocate Dharmendra Nayak appeared for the State.
Case Title: In Reference Case of Prosecutrix X vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Order Date: November 7, 2026
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke