Madhya Pradesh High Court
In Reference Suo Moto vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 September, 2025
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
1 WP-34274-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 1 st OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 34274 of 2025
IN REFERENCE SUO MOTO
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Dr. Amit Bhatia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
1. This petition has been registered on a reference having been made
by the First Additional District Judge, Biaora, District Rajgarh in compliance
of order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in reference (Suo Moto)
v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh W.P. No.5184/2025 decided on 20.02.2025.
2. The victim appears to be aged about 14 years. The Trial Court
had directed the hospital at Bhopal to furnish the report in respect of the
pregnancy of the victim to the effect as to whether the same can be
terminated or not. The report of the Medical Board has been received in
which the opinion rendered is that the gestational age of the fetus is more
than 24 weeks hence medical termination cannot be performed.
3. By order dated 26.08.2025, counsel for the respondent/State was
directed to instruct the concerned officials that the victim be re-examined at
the Gandhi Medical College Bhopal and a medical report in respect of her
condition be obtained. In compliance thereof, the victim has been examined
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
2 WP-34274-2025
by the medical board and it has reported that since pregnancy is more than 24
weeks, termination can only be performed with permission or order of this
court with all the explained risk of anticipated and unanticipated
complications related to termination of such high risk teenage pregnancy. It
has also been opined that continuation or termination of pregnancy shall have
all the same risk as of teenage pregnancy. The opinion of the medical board
is as under:
5. Opinion by Medical Board for termination of pregnancy:
a) Allowed:
b) Denied : Denied
The gestational age of the fetus is more than 24 weeks hence medical termination can not
be performed as per MTP Act amendment 2012. In case of permission or order of MTP by
honorable Court such termination can be performed with all the explained risk of
anticipated and unanticipated complications related to termination of such high risk
teenage pregnancy. Termination of pregnancy at this gestational age and continuation of
pregnancy, both, carries risk of complications.
4. In the case of A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra and
another 2024 (6) S.C.C. 327, the Supreme Court has held that opinion of the
pregnant person must be given priority in evaluating the foreseeable
environment of the person under Section 3(3) of the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971. It held that consent of pregnant person in decision of
reproductive anatomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount and in
case there is a diversion in the opinion of the pregnant person and her
guardian, the opinion of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be
taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling the Court to arrive
at a just conclusion. Presently, there is no consent of the minor as has been
held by the Apex Court to be an essential condition.
5. Keeping in view the observation of the Apex Court as above this
Court had directed the Principal District Judge, Bhopal to nominate a lady
Judicial Officer to visit the victim at the hospital and obtain her independent
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
3 WP-34274-2025
informed decision with regard to termination of her pregnancy. In
compliance of the said order the Principal District Judge, Bhopal deputed the
15th District and Sessions Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, Bhopal to visit
the victim for obtaining her decision with regard to termination of her
pregnancy. The said Officer visited the victim on 29.08.2025 at Gandhi
Medical College, Bhopal and interacted with the victim as well as her
mother. The statement of the victim was recorded. She stated that she does
not wish to continue with the pregnancy. Her mother, who was also present
there also stated that she consents to the termination of pregnancy of the
victim. The victim stated that she wishes to terminate her pregnancy without
any force or pressure.
6. The lady officer also consulted the Medical Specialist, who stated
that since the pregnancy of the victim is 26 weeks her termination would be
like a normal delivery. Since the matter is one of teen age pregnancy there
would be high risk in the termination.
7. Faced with a similar situation the Division Bench of this Court in
A Minor Through Her Grandmother G V/s. The State of M.P. and
Others (2024) 4) M.P.L.J. 568 held as under :-
"13. Reference may be had to the provisions of Section 3 of the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 which reads as
under:-
"3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered
medical practitioners.--
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a
pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical
practitioner,--
(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed
twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or
(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty
weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
4 WP-34274-2025
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 may
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 mental health of the pregnant woman."
14. Section 3(2)(a) of the Act permits termination of pregnancy
by registered medical practitioner in cases where length of
pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks or where it exceeds 20 weeks
but does not exceed 24 weeks, if the continuance of pregnancy
would involve a risk to life of pregnant woman or grave injury to
the physical or mental health.
15. Explanation 2 to Section 3(2)(b) provides that for the
purposes of Clause (a) and (b) where pregnancy is alleged by the
pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused
by the pregnancy, shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to
the mental health of the pregnant woman.
16. In the instant case, the pregnancy is over 28 weeks and has
been caused on account of the girl being raped. FIR No.629/2024
Police Station Nishatpura under Sections 376(2)(n), 366A, and 506
of IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of POCSO Act has been registered on
07.07.2024. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, 2023 (9) SCC 433
wherein the Supreme Court considered the constitutional values
animating the interpretation of MTP Act and MTP Rules and dealt
with the Right to Reproductive Autonomy of a woman. The
Supreme Court held that the MTP Act is an aid to interpretation
understanding injury to mental health and held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
5 WP-34274-2025
"64. When interpreting a sub-clause or part of a
statutory provision, the entire section should be read
together with different sub-clauses being a part of an
integral whole. [Balasinor Nagrik Coop. Bank Ltd. v.
Babubhai Shankerlal Pandya, (1987) 1 SCC 606;
Madanlal Fakirchand Dudhediya v. Shree Changdeo
Sugar Mills Ltd., 1962 SCC OnLine SC 65 : 1962 Supp
(3) SCR 973 : AIR 1962 SC 1543] In terms of Section
3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, not less than two RMPs must, in
good faith, be of the opinion that the continuation of the
pregnancy of any woman who falls within the ambit of
Rule 3-B would involve : (i) a risk to her life; (ii) grave
injury to her physical health; or (iii) grave injury to her
mental health. Alternatively, not less than two RMPs
must, in good faith, be of the opinion that there is a
substantial risk of the child suffering from a serious
physical or mental abnormality, if born. Women who
seek to avail of the benefit under Rule 3-B of the MTP
Rules continue to be subject to the requirements of
Section 3(2) of the MTP Act.
65. One of the grounds on the basis of which
termination of pregnancy may be carried out is when the
continuance of a pregnancy would involve risk of injury
to the mental health of the woman. The expression
"grave injury to her physical or mental health" used in
Section 3(2) is used in an overarching and all-
encompassing sense. The two Explanations appended to
Section 3(2) provide the circumstances under which the
anguish caused by a pregnancy may be presumed to
constitute a grave injury to the mental health of a
woman.
66. Courts in the country have permitted women to
terminate their pregnancies where the length of the
pregnancy exceeded twenty weeks (the outer limit for the
termination of the pregnancy in the unamended MTP
Act) by expansively interpreting Section 5, which
permitted RMPs to terminate pregnancies beyond the
twenty-week limit when it was necessary to save the life
of the woman. In X v. Union of India [X v. Union of
India, (2017) 3 SCC 458], Mamta Verma v. Union of
India [Mamta Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC
289], Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India [Meera
Santosh Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462],
Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India [Sarmishtha
Chakrabortty v. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 339] ,
this Court permitted the termination of post twenty-week
pregnancies after taking into account the risk of grave
injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman by
carrying the pregnancy to term.
67. The grounds for approaching courts differ and
include various reasons such as a change in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
6 WP-34274-2025
circumstances of a woman's environment during an
ongoing pregnancy, including risk to life, [A v. Union of
India, (2018) 14 SCC 75; X v. Union of India, (2017) 3
SCC 458; Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3
SCC 462; Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India,
(2018) 12 SCC 57; Mamta Verma v. Union of India,
(2018) 14 SCC 289] risk to mental health, [X v. Union
of India, (2017) 3 SCC 458; Meera Santosh Pal v. Union
of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462; Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v.
Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 339; Mamta Verma v.
Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 289; Z v. State of Bihar,
(2018) 11 SCC 572 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 675] discovery
of foetal anomalies, [A v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC
75; Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India, (2018)
13 SCC 339; Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India,
(2018) 12 SCC 57; Mamta Verma v. Union of India,
(2018) 14 SCC 289] late discovery of pregnancy in case
of minors and women with disabilities, [X v. Union of
India, (2020) 19 SCC 806] and pregnancies resulting
from sexual assault or rape. [Z v. State of Bihar, (2018)
11 SCC 572 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 675; X v. Union of
India, (2020) 19 SCC 806] These are illustrative
situations thrown up by cases which travel to the court.
Although the rulings in these cases recognised grave
physical and mental health harms and the violation of the
rights of women caused by the denial of the option to
terminate unwanted pregnancies, the relief provided to
the individual petitioner significantly varied.
68. The expression "mental health" has a wide
connotation and means much more than the absence of a
mental impairment or a mental illness. The World Health
Organisation defines "mental health" as a state of
"mental well-being that enables people to cope with the
stresses of life, realise their abilities, learn well and work
well, and contribute to their community". [World Health
Organisation, "Promoting Mental Health: Concepts,
Emerging Evidence, Practice (Summary Report)"
(2004).] The determination of the status of one's mental
health is located in one's self and experiences within
one's environment and social context. Our understanding
of the term "mental health" cannot be confined to
medical terms or medical language, but should be
understood in common parlance. The MTP Act itself
recognises the need to look at the surrounding
environment of the woman when interpreting injury to
her health. Section 3(3) states that while interpreting
"grave injury to her physical or mental health", account
may be taken of the pregnant woman's actual or
reasonably foreseeable environment. The consideration
of a woman's "actual or reasonably foreseeable
environment" becomes pertinent, especially when
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
7 WP-34274-2025
determining the risk of injury to the mental health of a
woman."
17. In the case of A (Mother of X) (supra), the Supreme Court
while considering the statements, objects and reasons of the MTP
Act and also the aspect of physical and mental health of the
pregnant person, held as under:-
"28. The powers vested under the Constitution in the
High Court and this Court allow them to enforce
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution. When a person approaches the court for
permission to terminate a pregnancy, the courts apply
their mind to the case and make a decision to protect the
physical and mental health of the pregnant person. In
doing so the court relies on the opinion of the Medical
Board constituted under the MTP Act for their medical
expertise. The court would thereafter apply their judicial
mind to the opinion of the Medical Board. Therefore, the
Medical Board cannot merely state that the grounds
under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act are not met. The
exercise of the jurisdiction of the courts would be
affected if they did not have the advantage of the
medical opinion of the board as to the risk involved to
the physical and mental health of the pregnant person.
Therefore, a Medical Board must examine the pregnant
person and opine on the aspect of the risk to their
physical and mental health.
29. The MTP Act has removed the restriction on the
length of the pregnancy for termination in only two
instances. Section 5 of the MTP Act prescribes that a
pregnancy may be terminated, regardless of the
gestational age, if the medical practitioner is of the
opinion formed in good faith that the termination is
immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant
person. Section 3(2-B) of the Act stipulates that no limit
shall apply on the length of the pregnancy for
terminating a foetus with substantial abnormalities. The
legislation has made a value judgment in Section 3(2-B)
of the Act, that a substantially abnormal foetus would be
more injurious to the mental and physical health of a
woman than any other circumstance. In this case, the
circumstance against which the provision is comparable
is rape of a minor. To deny the same enabling provision
of the law would appear prima facie unreasonable and
arbitrary. The value judgment of the legislation does not
appear to be based on scientific parameters but rather on
a notion that a substantially abnormal foetus will inflict
the most aggravated form of injury to the pregnant
person. This formed the basis for this Court to exercise
its powers and allow the termination of pregnancy in its
order dated 22-4-2024 [A v. State of Maharashtra, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
8 WP-34274-2025
SCC OnLine SC 608]. The provision is arguably suspect
on the ground that it unreasonably alters the autonomy of
a person by classifying a substantially abnormal foetus
differently than instances such as incest or rape. This
issue may be examined in an appropriate proceeding
should it become necessary.
30. Moreover, we are conscious of the fact that the
decision to terminate pregnancy is one which a person
takes seriously. The guidelines to terminate pregnancy as
well as the scheme of the MTP Act show the seriousness
attached to the well-being of the pregnant person
throughout the process envisaged under the MTP Act.
Change in the opinion of the Medical Board may cause
undue trauma and exertion to a pregnant person whose
mental health is understandably under distress. While we
understand the need for a Medical Board to issue a
clarificatory opinion based on the facts and
circumstances of each case, the board must explain the
reasons for the issuance of the clarification and, in
particular, if their opinion has changed from the earlier
report. Pregnant persons seeking termination of
pregnancy seek predictability for their future. The
uncertainty caused by changing opinions of the Medical
Board must therefore balance the distress it would cause
to the pregnant person by providing cogent and sound
reasons."
18. In A (Mother of X) (supra), the Supreme Court by order
dated 22.04.2024 had permitted the termination of pregnancy even
when the minor was in the 30th week of her pregnancy. However,
subsequently, the decision was taken by the minor and parents not
to put the child at risk.
19. In the instant case, as noticed above, the latest medical
opinion
suggests that the pregnancy is a high risk pregnancy. There is high
risk in both, taking the pregnancy to term and in termination of
pregnancy. A conscious decision has been taken by the guardian of
the minor as also the minor girl to proceed further with the
termination of pregnancy. This is coupled with the fact that an
offence of rape has been committed on the minor and the guardian
of the minor is an aged woman of 60 years who is solely taking
care of the minor and states that she would be unable to take care
of the minor and the baby.
20. Reference may be had to an order of the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Victim X vs. Superintendent of Police, dated
09.05.2024 passed in W.A. No.1078 of 2024 wherein the
Coordinate Bench in similar circumstances has permitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
9 WP-34274-2025
termination of pregnancy where the foetus had exceeded the age of
over 30 weeks."
8. In the present case also the latest medical opinion suggests that the
pregnancy is a high risk pregnancy. There is high risk in both, taking the
pregnancy to term and in termination of pregnancy. A conscious decision has
been taken by the victim as well as her mother to proceed further with the
termination of pregnancy. This is coupled with the fact that an offence of
rape has been committed on the minor and the minor as well as her mother
has stated that they wish to terminate the pregnancy.
9. In such circumstances, the petition is allowed and this Court
permits the termination of pregnancy subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The procedure of termination of pregnancy will be carried out
in the presence of the expert team of doctors. The expert doctors
will explain to the family members as well as the petitioner the risk
of getting the termination of her pregnancy and also other factors.
(ii) Every care and caution will be taken by the doctors while
terminating the pregnancy. All medical attention and other medical
facilities including that of a presence of a Pediatrician as well as a
Radiologist and other required doctors will be made available to
her.
(iii) The post operative care up to the extent required, will be
extended to the petitioner. It will be the duty of the State
Government to take care of the child, if born alive.
(iv) The doctors will also ensure that a sample from the foetus is
protected for DNA examination and as and when required will be
handed over to the prosecution for using in the criminal case itself
(v) A specialised team of Doctors shall take a decision as to
when to terminate the pregnancy. All necessary care and caution
shall be taken by the Doctors while carrying out the procedure for
termination of the pregnancy.
10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
ns
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24440
10 WP-34274-2025
