1 CGHC010311992026 2026:CGHC:36311 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4216 of 2026 Xyz Nil ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Health And Family Welfare Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Collector Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 4 - The Superintendent of Police Raipur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 5 - The Block Medical Officer Community Health Center Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 6 - The Station House Officer Police Station Abhanpur Dist. Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. S.S. Choubey, Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 14.08.2026 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought appropriate directions for termination of her pregnancy, which is alleged to have occurred YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.08.14 18:15:21 +0530 2 as a consequence of the sexual assault committed upon her. The petitioner is a victim of rape and offences punishable under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to sexual exploitation when she was a minor and, as a result of the said incident, she has conceived and is presently carrying the pregnancy. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection of her right to reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity and dignity, contending that continuation of the pregnancy would cause severe mental trauma and psychological distress to her. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent authorities to facilitate medical termination of her pregnancy in accordance with law. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ permit the daughter victim of the petitioners to terminate the pregnancy of 20 week in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Order and direct the concerning authorities to permit the termination of pregnancy of 20 week of the daughter of the petitioners in the interest of justice. 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased 3 to pass an appropriate order or issue writ as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 11.08.2026, this Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State counsel, took note of the submission that the petitioner is a victim of rape and is carrying a pregnancy alleged to have arisen out of the sexual assault committed upon her. Considering the nature of allegations, the relief sought by the petitioner and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, this Court directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO), Raipur to constitute a Medical Board comprising a Gynecologist and other necessary specialists for examination of the petitioner. The Medical Board was directed to assess the physical and mental condition of the petitioner, the stage of pregnancy, the condition of the foetus, the medical feasibility of termination of pregnancy, the risks involved in the procedure and the consequences of continuation of the pregnancy, and to submit its report before this Court. 3. Learned State counsel submits that, in compliance with the order dated 11.08.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was examined by the duly constituted Medical Board under the supervision of the CMHO, Raipur, and the report thereof has been received from the concerned authorities. The said report is taken on record for consideration of the present matter. 4 4. Pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2026 passed by this Court, the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the CMHO, Raipur. The Medical Board, after conducting her physical examination and considering the relevant medical investigations, including the sonography and laboratory reports, submitted its report. As per the report, the petitioner is carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy, and the gestational age of the foetus has been assessed to be approximately 14 weeks and 5 days. The Medical Board has further opined that the petitioner is physically and mentally fit and, having regard to the AFI of 2.8 cm noticed in the sonography, termination of pregnancy is medically indicated. The Board has, accordingly, opined that, subject to permission being granted, medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) may be undertaken under the supervision of two experts. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 6. 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 enactment is to provide a legal mechanism for termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners in specified circumstances while safeguarding the life, physical 5 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 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 6 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) 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 7 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 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 8 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.” 7. 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. 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 9 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.” 8. 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 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 10 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.” 9. 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. 10. 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. 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 11 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.” 11. 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. 12. 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 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 12 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.” 13. 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 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 13 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 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 14 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 consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman's body as well as her mind cannot be understated. The fetus relies on 15 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, whether, the pregnant lady intends to give birth to a child or not. This is what has been 16 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 the post-natal period owing to which she would have the burden of bringing up an 17 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.” 14. This Court in WPC No. 270/2018 (Ku. Pooja Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 02.02.2018 in paragraph No. 23 in a similar situation allowing the writ petition has held as under: “23. Taking into consideration the entire facts including her age (13 years) and circumstances what has been stated by the victim, her gestational age, judicial precedents, taking into consideration her adolescent pregnancy and risk involved in childbirth, medical condition of the victim / petitioner, as she is suffering anemia and sickle cell (trait), considering the fact that 18 the fetus if allowed to born, would have a limited life span with serious handicaps, and that as per Explanation I appended to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1971 mental agony of a rape victim (petitioner) has to be treated as a case of grave injury, particularly taking into consideration that it is in the best interests of the victim alone which has to be kept in view and considering the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1971 and Explanation I that the termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of a pregnant girl like the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to direct that a team of five doctors shall consider the feasibility of termination of pregnancy at this gestational age. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed…….” 15. This Court in WPC No. 2836 of 2026 (XYZ and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) decided on 15.06.2026 in paragraph No. 20 in a similar situation allowing the writ petition has held as under: “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 19 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.” 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case and further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (supra) and also Sarmishtha Chakraborthy (supra) permitted termination of pregnancy at the stage where the victim was carrying pregnancy for around 26 weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India and others, 2017 SCC Online 1092, considering the fact that the victim of rape must be given that much of liberty and right to decide whether she should continue with the pregnancy or she should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy. 17. The petitioner victim of sexual exploitation herself carry stigma in her life. In facts situation of the case, if she is not permitted to terminate her pregnancy, which is result of sexual exploitation, then it would be against her liberty and right to decide whether she continues with the pregnancy or not ? 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S v. The Union of India and others passed in Civil Appeal No.6667/2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 14454/2026) decided on 24.04.2026 held in paragraphs No.11.3, 14 & 14.1, reads as under:- 20 “11.3. We find that in cases of unwanted pregnancy, often the decision to terminate is made beyond the statutory period prescribed under the MTP Act owing to several reasons. It is under such circumstances that Constitutional Courts must weigh the circumstances in which a case in relation to the welfare of the pregnant woman has to be considered rather than the child to be born. In fact, under certain grounds, the MTP Act itself permits termination of pregnancy which is therefore recognised in law. The Constitutional Court is approached only when the statutory remedy is not available to a party. Can the Constitutional Court then say that since the statutory remedy is not available, no constitutional remedy would be available. That, in our view, cannot be the approach. A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy. The statute codifies a part of the constitutional remedy. If a case is not covered within the four corners of a statute then, can the constitutional relief be also denied? In our view, in such circumstances, the Constitutional Court ought to weigh all facts and circumstances from the lens of the party who intends to terminate the pregnancy and is willing to undertake the medical risk, rather than compelling her to complete the pregnancy term and give birth to an unwanted child. If the pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to continue such a pregnancy, then the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman would be breached. 21 14. We may usefully refer to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in X v. Health Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321, wherein it has been authoritatively held that a woman's right to reproductive autonomy includes the right to choose whether and when to have children, the number of children to have, and the right to access safe and legal abortion and reproductive healthcare. This Court recognized that the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy arises out of complex and deeply personal circumstances, which only the woman herself is best placed to evaluate. Reproductive autonomy, therefore, necessarily entails that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to decide whether to undergo an abortion. Importantly, this Court also observed that a mere clinical description of pregnancy cannot capture the profound physical and psychological consequences of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Consequently, the decision to either continue or terminate a pregnancy is firmly rooted in the woman's right to bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, which are integral facets of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. 14.1 In the context of the present case, we may refer to the decision of A (Mother of X) V. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal No.827 of 2026, where, on similar facts, this Court had allowed medical termination of pregnancy of 30 weeks of a minor girl. In that case too, the 22 pregnancy in question arose out of a consensual relationship, and much like the present case, the continuation of the pregnancy was stated to be traumatic both mentally as well as physically to the minor girl as it was an unwanted pregnancy.” 19. 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 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. 20. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner was a minor when she was allegedly kidnapped and subjected to 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 23 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. 21. The victim has expressed her free and informed desire not to continue with the pregnancy. 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. 22. Having carefully perused the material available on record, including the report submitted by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2026, and having considered the legal position governing the subject, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case requires to be examined in the backdrop of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as the constitutional rights of the petitioner. The record discloses that the petitioner was a minor at the time of the alleged sexual assault and that the present pregnancy is stated to have arisen as a consequence thereof. An FIR has already been registered at Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, in respect of the alleged incident. The petitioner has consistently expressed her unwillingness to continue with the pregnancy and has approached this Court seeking appropriate relief in respect of her 24 reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity and dignity. The pregnancy, therefore, is an unwanted pregnancy arising out of the alleged sexual assault, and compelling the petitioner to continue with such pregnancy would have serious physical and psychological consequences for her. 23. The Medical Board, pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2026, examined the petitioner and considered the relevant medical investigations, including the sonography and laboratory reports. As per the report submitted by the Board, the gestational age of the foetus was assessed to be approximately 14 weeks and 5 days. The Medical Board further found the petitioner to be physically and mentally fit and, having regard to the medical findings, particularly the AFI of 2.8 cm, opined that termination of pregnancy was medically indicated. The Board has specifically opined that, subject to permission being granted, medical termination of pregnancy could be undertaken under the supervision of two medical experts. Thus, the medical opinion rendered in the present case does not disclose any medical impediment to undertaking the procedure; rather, it supports the medical feasibility of termination under appropriate expert supervision. 24. The opinion of the Medical Board, in the facts of the present case, assumes considerable significance. The Board was constituted pursuant to the direction of this Court precisely to assess the 25 medical condition of the petitioner, the stage of pregnancy and the feasibility and safety of termination. Upon examination, the Board has found the petitioner to be physically and mentally fit and has opined that, if permission is granted, termination of pregnancy may be undertaken under the supervision of two experts. The said opinion, therefore, provides the necessary medical basis for considering the relief sought by the petitioner, while the ultimate determination regarding the grant of appropriate relief falls within the jurisdiction of this Court upon consideration of the medical opinion, the applicable statutory framework and the peculiar circumstances of the case. 25. This Court also finds that the Medical Board has not opined that termination of pregnancy is medically impossible or that the procedure would expose the petitioner to any such risk as would render the same impermissible. On the contrary, after examining the petitioner and considering the relevant medical investigations, the Board has specifically opined that medical termination of pregnancy can be undertaken under the supervision of two medical experts, subject to permission being granted. The medical opinion, therefore, indicates that the procedure is medically feasible and can be safely undertaken under appropriate expert supervision and medical protocol. In view thereof, and having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the present case, the opinion of the Medical Board furnishes 26 sufficient medical foundation for permitting the termination of pregnancy in accordance with law. 26. Explanation 2 appended to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 creates a statutory presumption that where 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 is explicit that a woman who has conceived as a consequence of rape should not be compelled to undergo further psychological trauma by continuation of an unwanted pregnancy. The said presumption acquires still greater significance where the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, as in the present case. Compelling such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to perpetuating the trauma already suffered by her and would seriously impair her dignity, bodily integrity and mental well-being. 27. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned case-laws unequivocally recognise that reproductive autonomy is an inseparable facet of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The consistent view of the Supreme Court is that while considering requests for medical termination of pregnancy, the paramount consideration is the interest, dignity, bodily autonomy and mental health of the pregnant woman and not merely the gestational age reflected in a 27 medical report. The Constitutional Courts are expected to adopt a purposive and humane interpretation consistent with the object of the enactment so that a victim of sexual assault is not compelled to undergo further physical and psychological suffering. 28. In view of the medical opinion rendered by the Medical Board and the subsequent course of treatment, it is brought on record that the pregnancy of the petitioner was medically terminated on 17.08.2026 under the supervision of two medical experts, in accordance with the medical advice and protocol prescribed by the Medical Board. Thus, the principal relief sought by the petitioner in the present writ petition has been duly acted upon. The concerned medical authorities shall, however, ensure that the petitioner is provided all necessary post-operative treatment, follow-up care and medical assistance, as may be advised by the treating doctors. Since the pregnancy has been terminated on 17.08.2026 under the supervision of the aforesaid two medical experts, no further direction is required with regard to the termination of pregnancy. Respondent No.3–Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, shall ensure that the petitioner continues to receive necessary medical care and follow-up treatment and that her physical and mental well-being is duly taken care of. 29. The identity, privacy and confidentiality of the petitioner shall be maintained with utmost care by all concerned authorities. No unnecessary disclosure of her identity, medical records or other 28 particulars shall be made, except to the extent required for the purposes of investigation, medical treatment or compliance with any order of a competent Court. 30. Since the criminal case arising out of the alleged sexual assault is pending investigation, the concerned hospital authorities shall, to the extent required and permissible under the applicable medical and forensic protocols, preserve the relevant medical and forensic material, including fetal tissue, placenta, blood samples and DNA material, if collected during the course of the procedure. The same shall be duly sealed and preserved and shall be made available to the Investigating Officer of Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, whenever required for the purposes of investigation and prosecution, in accordance with law. 31. A copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to Respondent No.3–Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, Respondent No.4–Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Respondent No.5–Community Health Centre, Abhanpur, District Raipur, and Respondent No.6–Station House Officer, Police Station Abhanpur, District Raipur, for information and necessary compliance. Learned State counsel shall also ensure prompt communication of this order to the concerned authorities. 32. Since the medical termination of pregnancy has already been carried out on 17.08.2026 under the supervision of two medical experts, as recommended by the Medical Board, the Chief 29 Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, shall ensure that the petitioner is provided necessary post-operative treatment, follow- up care and medical assistance in accordance with the advice of the treating medical experts. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, shall submit a compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of the medical termination. The report shall indicate the date on which the procedure was carried out, the medical condition of the petitioner following the procedure, the post- operative treatment and care provided to her, and the assistance extended by the concerned authorities. The Registrar (Judicial) shall place the said report before the appropriate Bench for information and further orders, if considered necessary. 33. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 34. The report submitted by the Medical Board pursuant to the order dated 11.08.2026 is taken on record. After retaining a copy thereof on the record of the case, the original sealed-cover report shall be resealed and kept in safe custody by the Registry, maintaining complete confidentiality of the identity and medical particulars of the petitioner. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh