Child's Trauma Cannot Be Ignored: MP HC Allows Termination Of 28-Week Pregnancy Of 13-Year-Old POCSO Victim

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior has allowed the medical termination of a pregnancy of about 28 weeks in a 13-year-old girl who is a victim in a sexual offences case, directing a team of senior doctors to carry out the procedure under strict medical safeguards.

Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, in an order dated September 29, 2026, allowed Writ Petition No. 41029 of 2026 and directed the Dean or Medical Superintendent of Atal Bihari Bajpai Government Medical College and Hospital, Vidisha, to constitute the medical team.

The girl, aged about 13 years and two months, is a victim in an offence registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. As per the Child Welfare Committee, Vidisha, she is carrying a pregnancy of about 28 weeks and two days, beyond the 24-week limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The matter reached the High Court through the procedure laid down by a Division Bench in W.P. No. 5184/2025, In Reference (Suo Motu) vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, decided on February 20, 2025. The girl was referred to a Medical Board, and the Special Judge, POCSO, Vidisha, directed that its report be sent to the High Court.

The Medical Board's report dated September 28, 2026 opined that termination can be allowed. It found the girl medically stable and "presently physically fit" for the procedure. However, it also noticed moderate iron-deficiency anaemia, which may increase the risk of complications, including excessive bleeding.

The Court examined Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 5(1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, including the statutory presumption regarding the mental anguish caused by a pregnancy resulting from rape. Conscious that the pregnancy was beyond 24 weeks, it relied on the Division Bench's view that the High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in such cases.

"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 Phadke observed. It added that it had to consider the effect of continuing the pregnancy on her "physical and mental well-being" and her future.

At the same time, it stressed that the Board's opinion could not be ignored. Because of the anaemia and the risk of bleeding, it said, "the procedure has to be carried out by a team of experienced doctors after taking all necessary medical precautions."

The team must include senior doctors from Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Anaesthesia, Medicine and Paediatrics. The procedure is to be undertaken on September 30, 2026 at 2:00 PM, subject to the girl being found medically fit immediately before it begins. The team must again examine her, particularly her haemoglobin level, and take all necessary treatment to reduce the risk of excessive bleeding.

The hospital must have facilities for emergency treatment, blood transfusion, anaesthesia, intensive care and neonatal care. The girl and her parents or natural guardian must be properly counselled about the risks, and consent must be taken in accordance with law. If the child is born alive, necessary neonatal care must be provided.

The Superintendent of Police, Vidisha, and the concerned Station House Officer must arrange the girl's safe transportation to the hospital. Relying on the Bombay High Court's ruling in Shaikh Ayesha Khatoon vs. Union of India, the Court directed that her parents be sensitised about the risks. The doctors who gave their opinions were granted immunity from liability for any litigation arising from the procedure.

The Medical Team must also preserve records and samples, including DNA samples, if required by the Investigating Officer or the competent criminal court. "The identity, confidentiality and dignity of the minor shall be strictly maintained," the Court said, directing a confidential compliance report afterwards.

Shri Dharmendra Nayak, Government Advocate, appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.

Case Title: In Reference (WP 5184/2025) vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Order: September 29, 2026

Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke