No Need To Approach Courts For Pregnancy Termination Below 24 Weeks: MP High Court To Health Authorities

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has permitted the medical termination of a 10-week pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor and, in the process, raised a larger concern over the growing practice of hospitals and authorities seeking court permission in cases where the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 already authorises the procedure.

Justice Vishal Mishra passed the order while dealing with a matter that originated from a communication placed before the Court regarding a minor rape survivor who was found pregnant during medical examination. The victim, identified in the order as ‘X’, was approximately 17 years and one month old when the issue came before the Court.

The Medical Board constituted in the matter examined the survivor and reported that she was carrying a pregnancy of around 10 weeks. The Board opined that the pregnancy could be medically terminated, although certain risks associated with her age, low body weight and possible complications such as excessive bleeding and infection were explained to the survivor and her family. The Board further recommended that the procedure be carried out at a medical college considering the high-risk nature of the pregnancy.

The Court noted that the victim and her mother had already expressed their willingness to proceed with the termination and had furnished consent on July 4, 2026. Referring to the provisions of the MTP Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in A v State of Maharashtra (2024), Justice Mishra emphasised that reproductive choice forms an integral part of personal liberty and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observations that “the health of the woman is paramount” and that “the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount.”

Allowing the request, the Court directed that the termination be conducted expeditiously by an expert team of doctors. It further ordered that all necessary medical facilities, including specialists and post-operative care, be made available to the survivor. The Court also directed doctors to preserve foetal samples for DNA examination to aid the pending criminal prosecution. Additionally, the medical team was instructed to ensure sensitive treatment of the survivor while keeping her emotional and mental well-being at the forefront.

However, the most significant aspect of the ruling came after the Court addressed what it described as a recurring and unnecessary trend. Justice Mishra observed that courts are increasingly being approached for permission in cases where the gestational age of the foetus is below 24 weeks and the statutory requirements under the MTP Act are already satisfied.

The Court pointed out that Section 3 of the MTP Act clearly permits termination of pregnancies up to 20 weeks by a registered medical practitioner and up to 24 weeks in specified categories based on the opinion of the required medical practitioners. In the present case, the pregnancy was only 10 weeks old, making it well within the statutory framework.

Expressing concern, Justice Mishra remarked that the Court had “failed to understand” why permission was being sought despite the existence of a clear legal mechanism. The judge observed that competent authorities were shifting responsibility among themselves, resulting in delays and forcing victims to approach courts for relief. “Cases of termination of pregnancy are of urgent nature and should have been addressed by the authorities themselves at the earliest,” the Court observed. It further noted that unnecessary litigation causes avoidable delay in matters directly affecting the health and rights of women and minor girls.

Taking the issue a step further, the Court directed that an explanation be obtained from the Civil Surgeon and Assistant Chief Superintendent of Hospital, Mandla, regarding why court permission was considered necessary despite the statutory scheme. It also ordered that copies of the judgment be sent to the Principal Secretary and Director of the Health Department so that appropriate directions could be issued and courts are “not flooded with such kind of cases any more.”

Case Title: Prosecutrix X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra