1 CGHC010367912026 2026:CGHC:42014 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4840 of 2026 Abc (Minor) Through Natural Guardian X Y Z ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Ministry Of Public Health And Welfare, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chairman District Medical Board Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 - The Chief Medical Health Officer (C.M.H.O.) Medical Board Of District Hospital Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Head Officer Of Department Gynaecologist (H.O.D.) Gynaic District - Hospital, Dhamtari District - Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Station House Officer Police Station Moudahapara District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Patwardhan, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Deputy Government Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Order on Board 26.09.2026 1. By filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a minor victim, has sought YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2026.09.28 13:54:40 +0530 2 appropriate directions for termination of her ongoing pregnancy, which is alleged to have occurred as a consequence of the sexual assault committed upon her. It is the case of the petitioner that she was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused on 05.03.2025 and, thereafter, on several occasions, when she was a minor. Pursuant to the disclosure made by her before her mother, an FIR has been registered for the alleged offences punishable under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is further the case of the petitioner that upon medical examination, she was found to be carrying a single live fetus corresponding to approximately 25 weeks and 1 day of gestation. The petitioner is also stated to be suffering from sickle-cell disease and, with the advancement of the pregnancy, her medical condition is allegedly becoming progressively complicated, thereby posing a serious risk to her life and physical health. In view of the advancing gestational age and the alleged medical complications, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking immediate medical intervention and termination of the pregnancy by duly registered medical practitioners in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner has, therefore, invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for constitution of an expert medical board and for facilitating termination of her ongoing pregnancy at an appropriate 3 Government or approved medical facility, in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the applicable medical guidelines. The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :- “10.1 To permit the petitioner to terminate her ongoing pregnancy through registered medical practitioners at any approved private or government center or Hospital. 10.2 To direct then State to form a panel of expert doctors at the District Hospital Dhamtari District-Dhamtari (C.G.) as early as possible for termination of pregnancy of the petitioner. 10.3 To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.” 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 23.09.2026, this Court, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned State counsel, took note of the submission that the petitioner is a minor victim and is carrying an unwanted pregnancy of about 25 weeks, which is alleged to have arisen as a consequence of the sexual assault committed upon her. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that an FIR had been registered on 07.09.2026 in respect of the alleged incident. 4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a minor victim, the advanced stage of pregnancy and the relief sought by her for 4 termination of pregnancy, this Court deemed it appropriate to have the petitioner examined by a duly constituted Medical Board consisting of expert doctors, including a woman Gynecologist, Pediatrician, Radiologist/Sonologist and such other specialist as may be required. Accordingly, the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dhamtari, was directed to constitute the Medical Board and to ensure medical examination of the petitioner after obtaining the consent of her parent/legal guardian. 5. The Medical Board was directed to assess the physical and mental condition of the petitioner, the present stage of pregnancy, the overall condition of the foetus, the medical feasibility and safety of termination of pregnancy at the present stage, the risks, if any, involved in such termination, and whether continuation of the pregnancy till full term would be detrimental to the health of the petitioner. The Medical Board was further directed to submit its detailed report before this Court on or before 26.09.2026, so as to enable this Court to pass appropriate further orders in accordance with law. The matter was accordingly directed to be listed for further consideration today i.e. on 26.09.2026. 6. Learned State counsel submits that, in compliance with the order dated 23.09.2026 passed by this Court, the minor petitioner was examined by the duly constituted Medical Board under the supervision of the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dhamtari, and the report thereof dated 25.09.2026 has been 5 received from the concerned authorities. The said report is taken on record for consideration of the present matter. 7. Pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2026 passed by this Court, the minor petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dhamtari, comprising experts including a Civil Surgeon, Gynecologist, Pediatrician, Radiologist and Medical Officer (Other Specialist). The Medical Board, after conducting the medical examination of the petitioner and carrying out the requisite clinical and radiological investigations, has submitted its report dated 25.09.2026. 8. As per the report, the petitioner is carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy, with fetal cardiac activity and fetal movements present, and the fetus is showing growth appropriate for the assessed gestational age. The Medical Board, on the basis of clinical examination and ultrasonography, has assessed the gestational age of the pregnancy at approximately 31 weeks and 6 days. 9. The Medical Board has further reported that the fetus is viable, with fetal cardiac activity of approximately 161 beats per minute, and that no gross structural anomaly or specific fetal abnormality has been detected on ultrasonography. The estimated fetal weight has been recorded as approximately 1925 grams, with the fetal presentation being cephalic. 6 10. With regard to termination of pregnancy at the present stage, the Medical Board has opined that termination at approximately 31 weeks and 6 days of gestation would involve certain risks to the health of the petitioner, including the possibility of excessive bleeding, infection, uterine injury or other surgical complications, prolonged hospitalization and, in rare cases, serious maternal morbidity. However, the Board has also opined that such risks can be controlled and minimized to a considerable extent by an experienced specialist team, appropriate medical facilities, adequate pre-procedure preparation and continuous medical monitoring. 11. The Medical Board has further opined that continuation of the pregnancy up to full term may involve additional physical strain upon the minor petitioner and that adverse effects upon her mental health cannot be ruled out. However, the Board has noted that a comprehensive assessment of the mental health implications could not be undertaken at the District Hospital, Dhamtari, as the services of a Psychiatrist/Mental Health Specialist are not available there. Accordingly, the Board has considered it appropriate that the petitioner be referred to a higher medical institution having the requisite multidisciplinary specialist facilities, including psychiatric services, for comprehensive evaluation and further medical care. In respect of the feasibility and safety of termination, the Medical Board has opined that termination of pregnancy can be undertaken with appropriate 7 medical facilities and under the supervision of an expert medical team, with the requisite consent of the parent/legal guardian. Having regard to the advanced gestational age and the potential risks involved, the Board has recommended that, if termination is to be undertaken, the same may appropriately be carried out at a higher-level health institution/centre having the requisite specialist and multidisciplinary facilities. 12. In its final opinion, the Medical Board has opined that it would be appropriate to undertake medical termination of the pregnancy of more than 25 weeks' gestation at a higher medical institution/centre, under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, so as to ensure availability of appropriate specialist care and to address the possible complications associated with termination at the present advanced stage of pregnancy. 13. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 14. 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 8 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 terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section 9 (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) 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 10 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 Government or Union territory, as the case may be.” (3) In determining whether the continuance of a 11 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.” 15. 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 12 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.” 16. 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 13 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.” 17. 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. 18. 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 14 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.” 19. 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. 20. 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 15 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.” 21. 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 :- “10. The issue which arises for our consideration in this case is with regard to the disinclination of the appellant's daughter herein to continue with the pregnancy and to give birth to a child. The appellant's daughter is presently pregnant for thirty weeks. The request was made by the appellant for seeking medical termination of her daughter's pregnancy since the said pregnancy 16 was owing to a relationship that her daughter had with her friend. It is stated that the continuation of the pregnancy resulting in delivery would be traumatic both mentally as well as physically to the daughter and adversely affect her future prospects. It is in the above circumstances that the appellant approached the High Court. 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 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, 17 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 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 18 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 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 19 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 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 20 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 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 21 Court by declining to grant her the relief she has sought and thereby forcing her to continue with pregnancy.” 22. 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 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 22 termination of pregnancy at this gestational age. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed…….” 23. 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 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.” 24. 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 23 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. 25. 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 ? 26. 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, 15, 15.1 and 15.2, reads as under:- “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 24 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. 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 25 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 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. 15. Thus, what is relevant is whether the pregnant woman intends to give birth to a child or not. In the instant case, the facts of the case reveal that the minor girl intends not to give birth. 26 15.1 Keeping that in view, when Constitutional Courts are approached by unintending mothers seeking termination of pregnancy, they ought not take a prohibitory approach. The consequence of such an approach will not be the cessation of late-term terminations, which will happen anyway, but only their displacement outside the law. Pregnant women may be driven to seek termination through unregulated means, often at a greater risk to their life and health. Thus, the unintended consequence of judicial reluctance to permit termination beyond the statutory period reinforces the very conditions that the MTP Act seeks to avoid, namely unsafe abortions. 15.2 Moreover, the invocation of foetal normalcy or the fact that the pregnancy has been carried for a considerable duration as grounds to deny termination is of no constitutional persuasiveness. These arguments proceed on the assumptions: first, that in the absence foetal abnormality, the continuation of pregnancy is unobjectionable, and second, that the passage of time extinguishes the pregnant woman's claim to decisional autonomy.” 27. 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, 27 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. 28. 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 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. 29. 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. 28 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. 30. Having perused the material available on record, the report dated 25.09.2026 submitted by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2026, and the legal position governing the field, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case requires consideration having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the age of the petitioner, the circumstances in which the pregnancy has arisen and the medical opinion placed before this Court. The record reveals that the petitioner is a minor victim and that an FIR has already been registered in respect of the alleged sexual assault committed upon her, for the offences punishable under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The pregnancy is stated to have arisen out of the aforesaid alleged sexual assault. The petitioner, through her parent/legal guardian, has approached this Court seeking termination of the ongoing pregnancy, which is clearly stated to be unwanted. 31. As per the report of the Medical Board, the petitioner was examined on 24.09.2026 and, upon clinical examination and ultrasonography, the gestational age of the pregnancy has been assessed at approximately 31 weeks and 6 days. The Board has 29 recorded that the fetus is alive and viable, with fetal cardiac activity of approximately 161 beats per minute and fetal movements present. The estimated fetal weight has been recorded as approximately 1925 grams, with growth appropriate for the assessed gestational age. The Board has further reported that no gross structural anomaly or specific fetal abnormality has been detected on ultrasonography. 32. The Medical Board has, however, not opined that termination of pregnancy is medically impossible. On the contrary, the Board has specifically opined that termination of pregnancy at the present stage can be undertaken with appropriate medical facilities and under expert supervision, while also recording that, having regard to the advanced gestational age, the procedure carries certain risks, including excessive bleeding, infection, uterine injury or other surgical complications, prolonged hospitalization and, in rare cases, serious maternal morbidity. The Board has further opined that such risks can be controlled and minimized to a considerable extent by an experienced specialist team, adequate medical preparation, appropriate medical facilities and continuous monitoring. 33. This Court also takes note of the fact that the Medical Board has observed that the District Hospital, Dhamtari does not have the services of a Psychiatrist/Mental Health Specialist and, therefore, a comprehensive assessment of the mental health implications of 30 continuation or termination of the pregnancy could not be undertaken at the district level. The Board has accordingly recommended that the petitioner be referred to a higher medical institution/centre having multidisciplinary specialist facilities, including psychiatric services, for comprehensive evaluation and further medical care. 34. Significantly, in its final opinion, the Medical Board has recommended that medical termination of the pregnancy of more than 25 weeks' gestation may appropriately be undertaken at a higher health institution/centre, under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, so as to ensure availability of appropriate specialist care and to minimize the possibility of complications. Thus, the report of the Medical Board does not constitute an opinion against termination of pregnancy; rather, it recognises the medical risks associated with termination at the present advanced stage and recommends that, if undertaken, the procedure be carried out at a higher-level medical institution equipped with the requisite multidisciplinary facilities. 35. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the petitioner is a minor and that the pregnancy is alleged to be the consequence of sexual assault. The advancing gestational age, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances in which the pregnancy has arisen and the physical and psychological 31 consequences that may follow from continuation of such pregnancy. At the same time, since the Medical Board has recorded that the fetus is viable and has identified certain risks associated with termination at the present stage, any further decision must necessarily be guided by the best interests of the minor petitioner, her safety and the considered opinion of an appropriately constituted multidisciplinary medical team. 36. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the report of the Medical Board dated 25.09.2026 provides sufficient medical material to indicate that termination of the pregnancy is not stated to be medically impossible, but that, having regard to the advanced gestational age of 31 weeks and 6 days, the procedure requires to be undertaken only at a suitably equipped higher medical institution under the supervision of an experienced multidisciplinary team, with necessary arrangements for maternal and neonatal care and continuous monitoring. 37. 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 32 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. 38. 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 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. 39. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the minor petitioner requires appropriate consideration in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is a minor victim and the pregnancy is alleged to have arisen as a consequence of the sexual assault 33 committed upon her. An FIR has already been registered in respect of the alleged incident for the offences punishable under Section 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioner has approached this Court through her parent/legal guardian seeking termination of the ongoing pregnancy. The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2026 has found the petitioner to be carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 31 weeks and 6 days and has opined that, though termination at the present advanced stage carries certain medical risks, the procedure can be undertaken with appropriate medical facilities and under the supervision of an experienced multidisciplinary team. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is required to balance the medical risks associated with termination against the physical and psychological consequences of continuation of the pregnancy upon the minor petitioner. 40. Consequently, having regard to the circumstances in which the pregnancy has arisen, the minority of the petitioner, the medical opinion placed before this Court and the recommendation of the Medical Board for undertaking the procedure at a higher-level medical institution, the present writ petition deserves to be and is accordingly allowed. Respondent/concerned Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dhamtari (C.G.), is directed to forthwith make all necessary arrangements for referring and admitting the 34 petitioner at Government Medical Hospital, Raipur (C.G.) having the requisite infrastructure and multidisciplinary expertise for undertaking medical termination of pregnancy. The procedure shall be undertaken by a duly constituted multidisciplinary team of experienced medical specialists, including Gynecologist, Anaesthetist, Pediatrician/Neonatologist, Physician and such other specialists as may be considered necessary, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended, the applicable Rules and medical protocols, and after taking all necessary precautions to safeguard the life and health of the minor petitioner. 41. Before undertaking the procedure, the concerned medical team shall obtain the requisite consent of the parent/legal guardian of the minor petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner and her parent/legal guardian shall be apprised, in a manner appropriate to her age and understanding, of the nature of the proposed procedure, the attendant risks, possible complications and the post-operative care required. All decisions relating to the medical procedure shall be taken by the treating multidisciplinary medical team strictly in accordance with law and accepted medical practice, keeping the best interests and safety of the minor petitioner as the paramount consideration. 42. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Raipur, shall personally ensure compliance with the directions contained 35 herein and shall extend all necessary medical, logistical and administrative assistance to the petitioner. The CMHO shall also ensure that necessary transportation, including ambulance facility, is made available to the petitioner for her safe transfer to the identified higher medical institution, if required, and for her return after completion of the necessary treatment, so that the petitioner does not face any inconvenience or hardship. 43. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be provided with all necessary pre-operative, operative and post-operative medical care by the concerned medical institution. In view of the advanced gestational age and the risks noticed by the Medical Board, all necessary arrangements for emergency management, blood transfusion, neonatal care and such other specialist support as may be medically required shall be kept available. The petitioner shall also be provided appropriate counselling and psychological support. The identity, privacy and confidentiality of the minor petitioner shall be maintained with utmost care and shall not be disclosed except to the extent permissible or required under law. 44. Since an FIR has already been registered in relation to the alleged sexual assault and the investigation is stated to be pending, the concerned hospital authorities shall preserve the foetal tissue, placenta, blood samples, DNA samples and such other biological material as may be relevant for the purposes of investigation, 36 strictly in accordance with the applicable medical and forensic protocols. Such material shall be appropriately collected, sealed, labelled and preserved and shall be made available to the Investigating Officer in accordance with law, whenever required. 45. A copy of this order shall be communicated forthwith to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Dhamtari as well as Chief Medical and Health Officer Raipur, the concerned Medical Superintendent/Head of the Government Medical Hospital Raipur and the concerned Superintendent of Police/Investigating Officer, for immediate compliance. Learned State counsel shall also ensure prompt communication and implementation of this order without any delay. 46. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Raipur, shall ensure faithful compliance with the directions contained herein and, after completion of the medical procedure and necessary post- operative treatment, shall submit a detailed compliance report before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within a period of two weeks. The report shall indicate the date on which the petitioner was referred/admitted, the date on which the procedure was undertaken, the medical condition of the petitioner before and after the procedure, the treatment and assistance extended to her, and the steps taken for preservation of relevant forensic material. The Registrar (Judicial) shall place the said report 37 before the appropriate Bench for information and further orders, if required. 47. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 48. The report dated 25.09.2026 submitted by the Medical Board constituted pursuant to the order dated 23.09.2026 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 minor petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh