1 2026:CGHC:23893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2836 of 2026 1 - X Y Z 2 - Bindlesh Kumar Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Shivalay Mohalla, Bankimongra, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Home Affairs (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - The Secretary Ministry of Public Health And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - The Chief Medical Officer/ Medical Board of District Hospital Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 4 - The Head of The Department Gynecology Department, District Hospital Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 5 - The Station House Officer Police Station Bankimongra, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Anand Dadariya, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 15.06.2026 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners call in question the forced continuation of the pregnancy of petitioner No. 1, who is a minor victim of YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.06.16 18:29:54 +0530 2 repeated rape and severe offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Kidnapped and allured on 28.08.2025 while just 17 years of age (born on 17.11.2007), the minor petitioner No.1 was subjected to continuous sexual exploitation for approximately one year until her rescue by police authorities. A subsequent medical examination revealed that she is currently 11 to 12 weeks pregnant. Given that the pregnancy is the direct result of egregious sexual assaults upon a minor, it constitutes a grave injury to her mental health under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The minor petitioner is entirely unprepared mentally to carry the pregnancy to term or give birth, and the petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to secure her fundamental right to reproductive autonomy and immediate medical termination of the pregnancy. The petitioners have prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1. The Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to terminate the pregnancy of petitioner no. 01, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That, such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be granted 3 to the petitioner in the interest of justice.” 2. When the case was called out for hearing on 11.06.2026, this Court, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State counsel, took note of the submission that petitioner No.1 is a rape survivor/victim who was carrying a pregnancy of about 12 weeks and had herself consented to the medical termination of the pregnancy. Considering the nature of the allegations and the relief sought, this Court directed constitution of a Medical Board under the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, comprising a Gynecologist, Pediatrician, Radiologist/Sonologist and other necessary specialists for examination of the petitioner. The Medical Board was directed to assess the petitioner with regard to her physical and mental condition, the stage of pregnancy, the condition of the foetus, the consequences of termination of pregnancy as well as the implications of continuation of the pregnancy to full term, and to submit its report before this Court. 3. Learned State counsel submits that, in compliance with the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by this Court, the report of the Medical Board has been received in a sealed cover from the concerned authorities. The said sealed-cover report is taken on record for consideration of the present matter. 4. Pursuant to the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by this Court, the 4 petitioner was examined by the duly constituted Medical Board and the report/opinion of the Medical Board has been submitted before this Court in a sealed cover vide communication dated 13.06.2026. The Medical Board, after examining the physical and mental condition of the petitioner, assessing the stage of pregnancy and considering the relevant medical investigations, has opined that the petitioner is carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 12 weeks and 3 days gestation and that medical termination of pregnancy is medically feasible in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The Board has further opined that, subject to the order of this Court and informed consent of the petitioner and her family regarding the attendant risks of the procedure, termination of the pregnancy can be undertaken. 5. The sealed-cover report of the Medical Board is accordingly taken on record. 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before adverting to the facts of the present case and the opinion rendered by the Medical Board, it would be apposite to notice the statutory framework governing the issue of medical termination of pregnancy. The field is regulated by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The object of the 5 enactment is to provide a legal mechanism for termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners in specified circumstances while safeguarding the life, physical health and mental well-being of the pregnant woman. Section 3 of the Act constitutes the substantive provision governing the circumstances and conditions under which a pregnancy may be medically terminated. The said provision delineates the situations in which a registered medical practitioner may form an opinion regarding the permissibility of termination of pregnancy, including cases where continuation of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health. The provision also recognizes special categories of women, including survivors of sexual assault, rape, incest and minors, and incorporates a statutory presumption of grave injury to mental health in such cases. Since the adjudication of the present petition revolves around the applicability of the aforesaid statutory provisions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, as amended in 2021 for ready reference: “3. When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is 6 terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,- (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the opinion, formed in good faith, that,- (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of clause (a), where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of clauses (a) 7 and (b), where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. (2A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner whose opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at different gestational age shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. (2B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of pregnancy by the medical practitioner where such termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board. (2C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case may be, shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called a Medical Board for the purposes of this Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. (2D) The Medical Board shall consist of the following, namely:- (a) a Gynaecologist; (b) a Paediatrician; (c) a Radiologist or Sonologist: and (d) such other number of members as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State 8 Government or Union territory, as the case may be.” (3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment. (4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who having attained the age of eighteen years, is a mentally ill person, shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian. (b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.” 8. In this regard, the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava and Another v Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 has laid down the guidelines based on the principle of “best interests” theory and held that the Court is required to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. Paras 36 and 37 read thus : “36. Courts in other common law jurisdictions have developed two distinct standards while exercising “parens patriae” jurisdiction for the purpose of making reproductive decisions on behalf of mentally retarded persons. These two standards are the “best interests” test and the “substituted judgment” test. 9 37. As evident from its literal description, the “best interests” test requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. In the present setting this means that the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of the other stakeholders such as guardians or the society in general. It is evident that the woman in question will need care and assistance which will in turn entail some costs. However, that cannot be a ground for denying the exercise of reproductive rights.” 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of X v Union of India and others, (2016) 14 SCC 382 has clearly held that termination of pregnancy after 20 weeks to save life of pregnant woman (an alleged rape victim) in case of grave danger to physical and mental health of the said woman, is permissible, and observed as under : “13. Having perused the medical report (relevant extracts whereof have been reproduced herein above), we are satisfied that a clear finding has been recorded by the Medical Board, that the risk to the petitioner of continuation of her pregnancy can gravely endanger her physical and mental health. The 10 Medical Board has also expressed an advice that the patient should not continue with the pregnancy. In view of the findings recorded in Para 6 of the report, coupled with the recommendation and advice tendered by the Medical Board, we are satisfied that it is permissible to allow the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy in terms of Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. In view of the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner, if she is so advised, to terminate her pregnancy.” 10. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of X and others v. Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC 458 and also in the matter of Meera Santosh Pal and others v Union of India and others, (2017) 3 SCC 462. 11. Further, in the matter of Mrs. A v Union of India and others, AIR 2017 SC 4037 the Supreme Court has granted permission for termination of pregnancy of a woman, aged 22 years, in her 25th to 26th weeks of pregnancy holding that continuation of pregnancy can pose severe mental injury to the petitioner and no additional risk to the petitioner's life is involved if she is allowed to undergo termination of her pregnancy. Their Lordships held as under : “6. Upon evaluation of the petitioner, the aforesaid Medical Board has concluded that her current pregnancy is of 25 to 26 weeks. 11 The condition of the foetus is not compatible with life. The medical evidence clearly suggests that there is no point in allowing the pregnancy to run its full course since the foetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus without a skull. 7. Importantly, it is reported that the continuation of pregnancy can pose severe mental injury to the petitioner and no additional risk to the petitioner's life is involved if she is allowed to undergo termination of her pregnancy.” 12. In the case of X v Union of India & others, (2016) 14 SCC 382 the request for termination of pregnancy was in a case where the pregnancy was of more than 20 weeks. The Supreme Court has permitted termination of pregnancy in matters, where the pregnancy was more than 20 weeks. 13. Recently, the Supreme Court, in the matter of X v Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Another, (2023) 9 SCC 433 held thus at para 127 : “127. The object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3-B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women. In view of the object, there is no rationale for excluding unmarried or 12 single women (who face a change in their material circumstances) from the ambit of Rule 3- B. A narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 requires the State to refrain from denying to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14. The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes "permissible sex", which create invidious classifications and excludes groups based on their personal circumstances. The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the right of choice on whether or not to bear a child, on a similar footing of a married woman.” 14. Very recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and others, Civil Appeal no.827/2026 decided on 06.02.2026, while dealing with the similar issue, has held as follows :- “16. …...Ultimately, the denominator is the fact that the child to be born is not out of a wedlock and secondly, the mother to be of the child does not want to bear such a child. If the interest of 13 the mother is to be taken note of, then her reproductive autonomy must be given sufficient emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman, much less a minor child, to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so; that would be more traumatic for a minor such as the appellant's daughter in the instant case. 17. In this regard we reiterate what has been observed by one of us (Nagarathna, J) in X vs. Union of India & Another, I.A. No.211690 of 2023 in M.A. No.2157 of 2023 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1137 of 2023 dated 11.10.2023 as under: "5. In this context, it would be necessary to reiterate the three Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in X vs. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, authored by Dr. Justice D.Υ. Chandrachud, presently the Chief Justice of India, of which paragraphs 99, 101 and 102 read as under: "99. The ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children. It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to 14 choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare. Women must also have the autonomy to make decisions concerning these rights, free from coercion or violence. XXX 101. To this, we may add that a woman is often enmeshed in complex notions of family, community, religion, and caste. Such external societal factors affect the way a woman exercises autonomy and control over her body, particularly in matters relating to reproductive decisions. Societal factors often find reinforcement by way of legal barriers restricting a woman's right to access abortion. The decision to have or not to have an abortion is borne out of complicated life circumstances, which only the woman can choose on her own terms without external interference or influence. Reproductive autonomy requires that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to choose to undergo or not to undergo abortion without any consent or authorization from a third party. 102. The right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy. As the term itself suggests, bodily autonomy is the right to take decisions about one's body. The 15 consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman's body as well as her mind cannot be understated. The fetus relies on the pregnant woman's body for sustenance and nourishment until it is born. The biological process of pregnancy transforms the woman's body to permit this. The woman may experience swelling, body ache, contractions, morning sickness, and restricted mobility, to name a few of a host of side effects. Further, complications may arise which pose a risk to the life of the woman. A mere description of the side effects of a pregnancy cannot possibly do justice to the visceral image of forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore, the decision to carry the pregnancy to its full term or terminate it is firmly rooted in the right to bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy of the pregnant woman. (underlining by me)" 6. Unwanted pregnancy as a result of failure in a family planning method, even during the period of Lactational Amenorrhea as in the instant case or as a result of sexual assault results in the same consequence. The pregnant lady is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy. In such a situation whether the child to be born is viable or if the child would be a healthy child are not relevant considerations. What is to be focused upon is, 16 whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not. This is what has been emphasized by this Court in the aforesaid three Judge Bench decision which is binding on this Bench. 7. It may not be out of place to note that a foetus is dependent on the mother and cannot be recognized as an individual personality from that of the mother as its very existence is owed to the mother. It would be incongruous to conclude that the foetus has a separate identity from the mother and in spite of the physical or mental health of a mother being under threat, she will have to continue her pregnancy until the foetus is born which would endanger her delicate health. Such a position is contrary to Article 21 and 15(3) of the Constitution of India which recognize the right to life and liberty and particularly those of a woman. One cannot also lose sight of the fact that reproduction is unique to women and throughout her life, a woman goes through the process of menstruation, pregnancy, delivery, post-delivery phase and ultimately menopause. As stated above, right to reproductive health being a woman's human right would also include the right to an abortion. Otherwise, a woman who is forced into an unwanted pregnancy would experience physical and mental trauma and to endure the pregnancy which may continue in 17 the post-natal period owing to which she would have the burden of bringing up an additional child and consequently, may lose out on other opportunities in life including right to employment and contribution to the income of the family. XXX This is not to say that in every case where there is an unwanted pregnancy, this Court or the High Courts ought to exercise its jurisdiction and order for termination. It would depend on the facts of each case. But in this case, when the petitioner is determined to terminate her pregnancy and has completely detached herself from the fact that she would be giving birth to her child shortly, she cannot be made worse off by this Court by declining to grant her the relief she has sought and thereby forcing her to continue with pregnancy.” 15. From perusal of the material available on record as well as the opinion rendered by the duly constituted Medical Board, it transpires that petitioner No.1 is a victim of repeated sexual assault and offences punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act. The record further reveals that petitioner No.1 was admittedly a minor on the date of the alleged incident and the pregnancy in question is a direct consequence of the sexual assault committed upon her. The petitioner has unequivocally expressed her unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy and 18 has voluntarily consented to its termination. The circumstances leading to the pregnancy, the age of the victim at the relevant time and the trauma suffered by her leave no manner of doubt that continuation of the pregnancy would cause immense mental anguish and emotional distress to the petitioner. 16. The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order of this Court has examined the petitioner in detail and has submitted its report in a sealed cover. The Board has found the petitioner to be conscious, oriented, cooperative and mentally competent to provide informed consent. The report further indicates that the petitioner is carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 12 weeks and 3 days gestation. Upon evaluation of her physical and mental condition and the stage of pregnancy, the Medical Board has categorically opined that medical termination of pregnancy is medically feasible and can be safely undertaken by approved medical methods in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The Board has further opined that subject to the order of this Court and the informed consent of the petitioner and her guardian/family members regarding the attendant medical risks, termination of pregnancy can be undertaken. 17. At this stage, it would be relevant to notice that Explanation 2 appended to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, creates a statutory presumption 19 that where a pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. The legislative intent underlying the said provision is clear and unambiguous. A woman who is compelled to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape is presumed in law to suffer grave mental injury. The presumption assumes even greater significance where the victim is a child or a minor, as in the present case. The trauma arising from sexual assault, coupled with the social, emotional and psychological consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, has a profound impact upon the life and future of the victim. 18. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner No.1 was a minor when she was allegedly kidnapped and subjected to repeated sexual exploitation. The pregnancy is not the result of a consensual relationship but is alleged to be the outcome of offences punishable under the POCSO Act. To compel such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to subjecting her to further trauma and would seriously impinge upon her bodily integrity, dignity, privacy and reproductive autonomy, all of which are facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava (supra), X (supra), Mrs. A (supra), X (supra) and A 20 (Mother of X) (supra), unequivocally recognize that the reproductive choices of a woman constitute an inseparable part of her personal liberty and that the Courts, while exercising jurisdiction in such matters, must be guided primarily by the best interests, dignity, autonomy and welfare of the victim. The aforesaid decisions further emphasize that where continuation of pregnancy would result in grave injury to the mental health of the woman, particularly in cases arising out of rape, the Courts ought to adopt a humane and purposive approach consistent with the object of the enactment. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court, the facts of the present case squarely satisfy the requirements envisaged under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021. The pregnancy is within the statutorily permissible period. The victim has expressed her free and informed desire not to continue with the pregnancy. The Medical Board has opined that termination is medically feasible. The pregnancy is alleged to be the consequence of repeated sexual assault upon a minor girl. Therefore, the statutory presumption of grave injury to the mental health of the petitioner stands attracted and there exists no legal impediment in permitting medical termination of pregnancy. 21. Consequently, and in the interest of securing the physical, mental and emotional well-being of petitioner No.1, the present writ 21 petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. It is directed that petitioner No.1 shall be admitted, within a period of one week from today, in the District Hospital/Associated Government Medical College Hospital, Korba, or any other Government Hospital having the requisite facilities, where the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, and the applicable medical protocol. The procedure shall be carried out by a duly constituted team of qualified medical experts, including at least two Gynecologists and a Surgeon, along with such other specialists as may be considered necessary by the hospital authorities. 22. Before undertaking the procedure, informed written consent of petitioner No.1 shall be obtained in accordance with law. In addition thereto, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the continued involvement and support of the family, the consent and concurrence of her father/guardian shall also be obtained. The medical team shall fully explain to petitioner No. 1 and her family members the nature of the procedure, attendant risks and post-operative requirements before proceeding further. 23. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korba, is directed to immediately establish contact with the father of petitioner No.1 22 and extend all necessary assistance to petitioner No.1 and her family members for effective implementation of this order. The CMHO shall ensure that appropriate transportation, including ambulance facilities, is made available to petitioner No.1 for her travel to and from the hospital and for any medical exigency connected with the procedure. The CMHO shall also coordinate with the concerned medical experts and fix an appropriate date for admission and termination of pregnancy within a period of one week from today. The State authorities shall render all possible logistical, medical and administrative assistance to petitioner No.1 and her family members so that the procedure is carried out in a safe, dignified and expeditious manner without causing any inconvenience or hardship to the victim. 24. It is further directed that all necessary pre-operative, operative and post-operative medical care shall be provided to petitioner No.1 by the hospital authorities. The identity, privacy and confidentiality of petitioner No.1 shall be strictly protected at every stage of the proceedings and medical treatment. 25. Since a criminal case arising out of the alleged sexual assault is stated to be pending investigation/trial, the concerned hospital authorities shall preserve appropriate samples, including fetal tissue/DNA samples, in accordance with the applicable medical and forensic protocols and shall make the same available to the 23 investigating agency, if required, for the purposes of investigation and prosecution. 26. A copy of this order be communicated forthwith to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korba for immediate compliance. Learned State counsel shall also ensure prompt transmission and compliance of this order. 27. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Korba, shall ensure due compliance of the directions contained in this order and, after completion of the procedure and necessary post-operative care, shall submit a compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of completion of the medical termination procedure. The report shall indicate the steps taken pursuant to this order, the date on which the procedure was carried out, the medical condition of petitioner No.1 after the procedure and the assistance extended by the authorities to petitioner No.1 and her family members. The Registrar (Judicial) shall place the said report before the appropriate Bench for necessary information. 28. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh