[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Victim X Ballu Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
1 WP-8314-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8314 of 2026
VICTIM X BALLU RAJAK
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shashwat Rao - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Smrati Sharma- DY. GA appearing for respondents/State.
ORDER
1 . The instant writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of
India is filed by the petitioner who is a minor and victim of crime No. 84 of
2025 registered at Police Station,Badoni, Distt. Datia and in the present
petition, permission for medical termination of pregnancy by the petitioner
has been sought for.
2. In compliance of order dated 09/03/2026 initially, a report dated
10/03/2026, was submitted by the Gynecology Department of Government
Medical College, Datia, containing opinion of Medical Board indicating that
the petitioner is carrying pregnancy of 20 weeks. In further compliance of
order dated 11/03/2026, the learned Government Advocate appearing for
State has produced another report dated 12/03/2026, submitted by the
Medical Board of Government Medical College, Datia, indicating that the
medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is possible, as per the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
2 WP-8314-2026
opinion of two Medical Experts. However, for carrying out the procedure for
Medical Termination of Pregnancy, Special Clinical and Medical Test /
Procedure would be required, which is possible at higher Medical Center
like, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior. The report further states that the
medical termination of pregnancy can be performed only on the written
consent of the petitioner.
3 . Supreme Court considering the right of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has held that
unmarried woman has right to decide in respect of the pregnancy.
4. Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and
Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2023) 9
SCC 433, after considering constitutional values animating the interpretation
of MTP Act and the MTP rules dealt with the right to Reproductive
Autonomy of the women and has held as under:-
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
3 WP-8314-2026
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 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 5; 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
4 WP-8314-2026
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 determining the
risk of injury to the mental health of a woman.
xxxxx xx x x x
115. The right to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to
be treated as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value. It means
that every human being possesses dignity merely by being a human,
and can make self-defining and self-determining choices. Dignity
has been recognised as a core component of the right to life and
liberty under Article 21.
116. If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their
pregnancies to term, the State would be stripping them of the right to
determine the immediate and long-term path their lives would take.
Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also
over their lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to
choose for oneself -- be it as significant as choosing the course of
one's life or as mundane as one's day-to-day activities -- forms a
part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under
attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies.
xxxxx xxxxx
122. In the context of abortion, the right to dignity entails
recognizing the competence and authority of every woman to take
reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate the
pregnancy. Although human dignity inheres in every individual, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
5 WP-8314-2026
susceptible to violation by external conditions and treatment
imposed by the State. The right of every woman to make
reproductive choices without undue interference from the State is
central to the idea of human dignity. Deprivation of access to
reproductive healthcare or emotional and physical well-being also
injures the dignity of women."
5. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. This Court permits the
termination of pregnancy subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The Dean of Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior is directed to
get the medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner performed by
following the protocols after obtaining consent of petitioner/prosecutrix.
Prosecutrix along with her guardian shall appear before the Dean on
16.03.2026.
(ii) A specialized team of Doctors shall take a decision as to when to
terminate the pregnancy.
(iii) 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.
(iv) 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.
(v) 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8819
6 WP-8314-2026
(vi) 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.
The typed copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel
appearing for the State for further communication to the Dean of Gajra Raja
Medical College, Gwalior for necessary compliance.
CC today.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar
