- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 25533 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. Ms. X (THOUGH THE NAME OF THE VICTIM'S MOTHER IS MENTIONED IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE PETITION, IN LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BHUPINDER SHARMA VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH REPORTED IN (2003) 8 SCC 551, THE NAME OF THE VICTIM 'S MOTHER NOT DISCLOSED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S.PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHANURU POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 077 3. DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY BENGALURU CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY 4. BOWRING AND LADY CURZON HOSPITAL LADY CURZON ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SURGEON 5. CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, KOLAR DISTRICT BEHIND KIDWAI HOSPITAL, DR. M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029 REPESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON 6. DISTRICT CHILDREN PROTECTION UNIT BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT, COLLEGE POST, BESIDE KIDWAI HOSPITAL, DR. M.H.MARIGOWDA ROAD, HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 029 REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF THE PETITIONER DAUGHTER; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PRESERVE THE TERMINATED FOETUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DNA TESTING AND ANALYSIS; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECITNG RESPONDENT NO.3 TO CONDUCT DNA TEST OF THE TERMINATED FOETUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.0228/2025 REGISTERED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.3 I.E., KOTHANURPOLICE STATION; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO MEET THE ENTURE EXPENSE OF THE PETITIONER TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES, COUNSELLING AND OTHER TREATMENT SHE MIGHT HAVE TO UNDERGO; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO DISBURSE A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- (RUPEES THREE LAKH ONLY) TOWARDS COMPENSATION AS PER THE COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR WOMEN VICTIMS/SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT/OTHER. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is represented by her mother, is a 14 year old victim of sexual assault and she is in the family way. The petitioner has lost her father as a 10 year old girl and she is presently studying in IX Standard with a Government School. The petitioner, amongst others, seeks directions to the fourth respondent to terminate her pregnancy with directions to all the respondents to ensure DNA Test is conducted as part of pending investigation in Crime No.228/2025 and for compensation to the victim. 2. This Court has called for a report from the Medical Board with the fourth respondent [M/s Bowring And Lady Curzon Hospital], and the Medical - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 Board's opinion is that [a] the gestational age of the foetus is 27-28 weeks [b] there is possibility of survival of the baby without any neurological and physical deficits [c] the petitioner as a 14 year old mother would be psychologically impaired if she carries pregnancy to term [d] if there is termination, the petitioner will have risks and complications associated with delivery at term, and [e] in case of survival of the baby at the time of termination, there would be perinatal complications associated with extreme pre-maturity. 3. This Court must record that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, carves out an exception for termination of pregnancy of minors who are victims of rape, when their pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks, but for reasons contemplated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 when supported by good faith opinion of a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 Board of Doctors if there is risk to physical and mental health of the person. 4. 4. This Court must next refer to the decision of the Apex Court in XYZ v. State of Gujarat and Others1, where the Apex Court, reiterating that it is for a woman to decide on whether she wants to undergo medical termination of pregnancy or otherwise, has permitted termination in the case of a person who was 27 weeks into pregnancy with certain directions, and these directions are: [a] to the hospital to carry out medical procedure at the earliest, [b] to the Hospital to give all necessary medical assistance if the baby is alive, including incubation, and if necessary to make arrangements in this regard with other hospitals, 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1573 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 [c] to the State to take all steps for ensuring that the child is offered for adoption in accordance with law, and [d] to the concerned to ensure that the evidence is preserved for subsequent DNA test for the purposes of investigation. 5. In this case, where it cannot be disputed that a 14-year-old girl is a victim of sexual assault and has come to know about her physiological condition only when the School authorities have taken her to the hospital, and with the opinion of the Medical Board finding that the termination is with her consent and in her best interest, and significantly, as chosen by her there must be appropriate directions. Hence, the following: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 ORDER [A] The petition is allowed directing the fourth respondent to carry out the procedure for medical termination of the petitioner's pregnancy at the earliest, and it shall be for the Doctors to decide on the decision on the survival of the foetus. [B] The State Government, in directing the District Children Protection Unit - sixth respondent, is called upon to ensure that if the baby survives, it is offered for adoption in accordance with law. [C] The fourth respondent shall ensure that the evidence is preserved and handed over to the Investigating agency for DNA test as part of the ongoing investigation. [D] The third respondent shall ensure payment of compensation to the petitioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 in accordance with the Victim Compensation Scheme. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [MS. X VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] 29.08.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORDER ON 'FOR BEING SPOKEN TO' This Court has disposed of this petition dated 23.08.2025 directing the fourth respondent [the Chief Surgeon with M/s. Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru] to conduct the procedure for medical termination of the petitioner's pregnancy, and this Court's order is in the light of the opinion of the Medical Board constituted by M/s. Vani Vilas Hospital, Bengaluru. The Medical Superintendent of M/s. Vani Vilas Hospital, Bengaluru has constituted the Board in terms of this Court's Order dated 21.08.2025. On perusal of this order, it is seen that a direction for constitution of the Medical Board is in view of the submissions made, and Smt Navya Shekhar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 makes a mention for appropriate direction to enable the fourth respondent to act upon the opinion of the Medical Board at M/s. Vani Vilas Hospital, Bengaluru. Sri K S Ponnappa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also heard. The procedure will have to be at a Government Hospital as contemplated under Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 [for short, 'the Act'] and the other significant requirement must be the opinion of the Medical Board as is contemplated under Section 3[2][b] of the Act. This Court is satisfied that if both the Institutions viz., M/s. Vani Vilas Hospital, Bengaluru and M/s. Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru, are Government Hospitals, the opinion of the Medical Board constituted by M/s. Vani Vilas Hospital must suffice and the request must be accepted directing the learned Additional Government Advocate to ensure that the opinion of the Board, which constitutes a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33107 WP No. 25533 of 2025 basis for this Court's direction on 23.08.2025, is forwarded to M/s. Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru [the fourth respondent]. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1