Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prosecturix X vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 October, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54255
1 WP-42419-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 30th OF OCTOBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 42419 of 2025
PROSECTURIX X
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri A.S. Baghel - Government Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
This petition has been registered and taken up Suo Moto in pursuance
to the letter addressed to the Registrar General of this Court dated
15.10.2025 by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, District Panna, M.P. seeking
permission for termination of pregnancy of a rape victim who was a minor.
2. This Court vide order dated 29.10.2025 had directed to get the
medical examination of the victim carried out and produce the report.
3. It is submitted that the Police Authorities went to the house of the
victim for taking her to the hospital for getting her medically examined,
however, she as well as her parents have refused for undergoing the medical
examination and for termination of pregnancy . The statement of Dr. Meena
Namdeo, Gynecologist, Panna dated 29.10.2025 has been brought on record
to the aforesaid effect in the forms of questions and answers. The relevant
reads as under:-
'(1) जब दनांक 29/09/2025 क पी ड़ता और
उसके माता पता आपके सम उप थत हुए थे
तब आपके ारा उनक काउं सिलग क जाकर उ ह
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54255
2 WP-42419-2025
गभपात कराने या गभधारण कए रहने क
थित म होने वाली संभा वत जो खम एवं
ज टलताओं के संबध मे व सकारा मक व
नकारा मक भाव के बारे म पया समसाइस द
गह थी या नह ?
उ र -1. मेरे ारा िस वल सजन क उप थित म
पया समझाइस द गई थी।
(2) पी डता क मे डकल थित या है तथा
यद पी डता व उसके माता पता उसका गभपात
कराने को सहमत हो तो उसका गभपात सुर त
हो सकता है , या नह ं ?
उ र:- दनांक 13-09-2025 को पी ड़ता का
मे डकल पर ण मे डकल बोड ारा कया गया
था जसमे वह कम उ क थी तथा कमजोर थी
पी ड़ता के माता- पता को समझाइस द गई थी
क पी ड़ता क उ कम है जो माता पता के ारा
पी ड़ता का गभपात कराने से साफ इं कार कया
था। य द पी ड़ता के माता पता गभपात कराने क
सहमित दे ते तो पी ड़ता का गभपात मे डकल
कॉलेज म जहाँ पर एक से अिधक ी रोग
वशेष कायरत हो वहाँ पर सुर त हो सकता
था।
(3) दनांक 29-09-2025 को पी ड़ता व उसके
माता पता ारा गभपात कराने म मना कया
गया तब उ होने गभ बनाये रखने वावत सहमित
द भी अथवा नह ?
उ र-3:- दनांक 29-09-2025 को पी डता व उनके
माता पता ारा गभपात कराने से मना कया तब
पी ड़ता के माता पता ारा पी ड़ता को यथा
थित म रहने क सहमित द थी।''
4 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327 has held as
under:-
"35. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh
Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ)
570, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has
held that the right to make reproductive
choices is a facet of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Further, the consent of the
pregnant person in matters of reproductive
choices and abortion is paramount. The
purport of this Court's decision in Suchita
Srivastava was to protect the right to abortion
on a firm footing as an intrinsic element of
the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity and
bodily integrity as well as to reaffirm that
matters of sexual and reproductive choices
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:54255
3 WP-42419-2025
belong to the individual alone. In rejecting
the State's jurisdiction as the parens patriae of
the pregnant person, this Court held that no
entity, even if it is the State, can speak on
behalf of a pregnant person and usurp her
consent. The choice to continue pregnancy to
term, regardless of the court having allowed
termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the
individual alone.
36. In the present case the view of X and her
parents to take the pregnancy to term are in
tandem. The right to choose and reproductive
freedom is a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution. Therefore, where the
opinion of a minor pregnant person differs
from the guardian, the court must regard the
view of the pregnant person as an important
factor while deciding the termination of the
pregnancy."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. If the statement of the doctor is seen, then it is clear that victim as
well as her parents do not want to go for any further medical examination
and they have denied to undergo termination of pregnancy.
6. In view of the fact that victim as well as her parents have not given
any consent for undergoing termination of pregnancy and taking note of
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of
X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327 , the
termination of pregnancy in the present case cannot be ordered.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
