Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ms. Meera Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 15 September, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:40965]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16629/2025

Ms. XXXX
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                               Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare
         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur,
2.       The Secretary, Women And Child Development Board,
         Jaipur.
3.       The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Jodhpur
4.       The Superintendent, Govt. Balika Grah, Child Welfare
         Department, Jodhpur.
5.       The Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur.
6.       The Superintendent Of Police, District Jodhpur
7.       The Sho, Police Station Luni, District Jodhpur
                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Ms. Sapna Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Kanchan Jodha for
                                Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order 15/09/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance

of the order dated 28.08.2025, the Medical Board examined the

pregnancy, however, opined that the termination of pregnancy was

not medically advised.

2. A copy of the report dated 29.08.2025 as shown by the

learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that

the present writ petition may be disposed of in light of the

directions given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.295/2025 (X Vs. The State of Rajasthan

and Ors.) vide order dated 07.01.2025.

4. In case of X Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under :-

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (2 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

'1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (a minor) through her mother seeking medical termination of pregnancy, seeking following relief(s):

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and; 1. The direction may kindly be passed to the respondents to terminate the prenancy of the victim Miss "S" D/o Sanjay Kumar in relation/continuation of the FIR No.746/2024 P.S. Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to keep the DNA of the fetus preserved in relation to the charges of rape upon the accused. 3. That any other appropriate relief, which this Hon'ble Court High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners."

2. It is averred by the counsel for petitioner that Petitioner is a rape victim and she does not wish to continue the pregnancy. He also submits that the mother of the petitioner also does not want her daughter to continue the pregnancy.

3. On the request of the petitioner, this court vide order dated 06.01.2025 gave following directions:

"...5. The respondent No. 3-The Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, is directed to depute an expert Sonologist at the said hospital to conduct sonography of the petitioner today itself. The petitioner along with her mother, is directed to remain present before the concerned doctor for conducting sonography. The concerned doctor shall conduct sonography to ascertain the gestation age of the foetus. The respondent No.3- The Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Hanumangarh shall constitute a Medical Board of senior doctors and opine as to whether the medical termination of the pregnancy shall be safe for the minor or not.

6. It is further directed that the sonography report as well as the opinion of the Medical Board be placed before this Court tomorrow i.e. on 07.01.2025. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned AAG, is directed to ensure compliance of this order..."

4. Upon the directions of this Court, the Medical Board was constituted on 06.01.2025 and has rendered its opinion in the following terms:

"Opinion:- The victim is pregnant with single live viable foetus of gestational age of 30 weeks &

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (3 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

weight = 1.5Kg. The foetus had attained the age of viability(28 weeks) and is capable of independent existence. Termination of pregnancy will not be in favour of life of foetus and may also have adverse effect on the health of the mother. Victim is stable at present but she is suffering from Anemia(Hb 5.5), yet premature delivery of this foetus at this stage of pregnancy(30 weeks) by premature induction of labour is not medically advisable as it may have adverse effects on the life of & health of both mother & foetus. She should be admitted for Anemia correction."

5. The medical as well as sonography reports dated 06.01.2025 produced are taken on record. The report of the medical board can be summarised in the following terms:

a. The petitioner is pregnant with single live viable foetus with gestational age of 30 weeks. b. Termination of pregnancy will not be in favour of life of foetus.

c. The petitioner is stable at present but she is suffering from Anemia (Hb 5.5) and should be admitted for Anemia correction d. Premature delivery of this foetus at this stage of pregnancy (30 weeks) by premature induction of labour is not medically advisable as it may have adverse effects on the life and health of both the petitioner and foetus.

6. At this juncture it would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('MTP Act') and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. Section 3 of the MTP Act is being reproduced as under:

"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 registered medical practitioner,--

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (4 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

(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 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. (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

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (5 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

(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 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 1 [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."

6.1. It is clear from the perusal of Section 3 of the MTP Act that Section 3(2) provides for two categories of cases in which a pregnancy can be terminated by a registered medical practitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. These categories are based on the length of the pregnancy i.e., a. upto 20 weeks; b. more than 20 weeks but upto 24 weeks. However, the pregnancy in the present case has already crossed the period of 24 weeks, thus, the case of petitioner does not fall under Section 3(2) (A) and (B). Section 3 (2B) provides that in a case where termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board, the provisions of Section 3(2) relating to the length of the pregnancy shall not apply. Thus, as per Section 3(2B) even if the length of pregnancy is of more than 24 weeks, termination of pregnancy may be done if the Medical Board has diagnosed any substantial foetal abnormalities which necessitates such termination of pregnancy.

6.2. Section 5 of the MTP Act is being reproduced as under:

"5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply.--(1) The provisions of section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (6 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the termination of pregnancy by a person who is not a registered medical practitioner shall be an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years under that Code, and that Code shall, to this extent, stand modified. (3) Whoever terminates any pregnancy in a place other than that mentioned in section 4, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years.

(4) Any person being owner of a place which is not approved under clause (b) of section 4 shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years.

Explanation 1.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "owner" in relation to a place means any person who is the administrative head or otherwise responsible for the working or maintenance of a hospital or place, by whatever name called, where the pregnancy may be terminated under this Act.

Explanation 2.--For the purposes of this section, so much of the provisions of clause (d) of section 2 as relate to the possession, by registered medical practitioner, of experience or training in gynaecology and obstetrics shall not apply." A bare perusal of Section 5(1) makes it evident that the provisions of Section 3(2) as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion not less than two registered medical practitioners shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he, in good faith, forms an opinion that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. 6.3. This Court also takes into consideration Rule 3A of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003('MTP Rules') which is being reproduced as under:

"3A. Powers and functions of Medical Board.

-- For the purposes of section 3,--

(a) the powers of the Medical Board shall be the following, namely:

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (7 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

(i) to allow or deny termination of pregnancy beyond twenty-four weeks of gestation period under sub-section (2B) of the said section only after due consideration and ensuring that the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age and whether the foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped;

(ii) co-opt other specialists in the Board and ask for any additional investigations if required, for deciding on the termination of pregnancy,

(b) the functions of the Medical Board shall be the following, namely:

(i) to examine the woman and her reports, who may approach for medical termination of pregnancy under sub section (2B) of section 3;

(ii) provide the opinion of Medical Board in Form D with regard to the termination of pregnancy or rejection of request for termination within three days of receiving the request for medical termination of pregnancy under sub section (2B) of section 3;

(iii) to ensure that the termination procedure, when advised by the Medical Board, is carried out with all safety precautions along with appropriate counselling within five days of the receipt of the request for medical termination of pregnancy under sub-section (2B) of section 3."

Thus, Rule 3A of the MTP Rules provides for the power and functions of Medical Board for the purpose of Section 3 of the MTP Act. Rule 3A(a)(i) provides for the power of the Medical Board to either allow or deny termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks of gestation period under Section 3(2B) of the Act, however, such power can be exercised after due consideration and ensuring that (I) the procedure would be safe for the woman at such gestation age, and (II) when foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life, or (III) if the child is born it may suffer such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped.

6.4. Thus, the position of law which emerges from the conjoint reading of Sections 2, 3, 5 of the MTP Act and Rule 3A of the MTP Rules is that the termination of pregnancy can be allowed in cases where the gestation period/pregnancy has crossed the mark of 24 weeks, if:

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (8 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

(i) There is diagnosis of any substantial foetal abnormalities by a Medical Board or that the foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life and the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age, or

(ii) The registered medical practitioner, in good faith, forms an opinion that termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to the mental or physical health.

7. In the present case, the Medical Board has opined that the petitioner is pregnant with single live viable foetus of gestational age of 30 weeks. The report of the Medical Board does not indicate any foetal abnormality. The Medical Board has also opined that the petitioner is stable at present but she is suffering from Anemia(Hb 5.5). Further, the Medical Board has in clear terms opined that premature delivery of the foetus at this stage of pregnancy by premature induction of labour is not medically advisable as it may have adverse affects on the life and health of both the petitioner and foetus. Thus, upon perusal of the report submitted by the Medical Board, it is clear that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of law which have been enumerated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment so as to allow termination of pregnancy which is beyond 24 weeks.

8. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is not inclined to give directions for termination of the pregnancy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with the following directions:

(i) The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner all necessary care, nutritious food and medical attendance before and after delivery.

(ii) The Superintendent of PBM Hospital, Ambedkar Circle, Bikaner is directed to ensure that all medical facilities are made available to the petitioner before and after delivery of the petitioner without payment of any fee, charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery takes place in a safe environment.

(iii) The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained at all stages and her identity shall not be disclosed in the course of hospitalization, treatment and admission.

(iv) If the petitioner or her parents so wish, the child, on birth, may be handed over to the Child Welfare Committee of Bikaner and the

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40965] (9 of 9) [CW-16629/2025]

petitioner/parents of the petitioner shall fulfill all necessary documentation and all formalities as may be so required under the law for handing over custody of the child to the Child Welfare Committee.

(v) The Child Welfare Committee, Bikaner shall take care of all the needs and facilities of the child.

(vi) The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) as well as District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Hanumangarh are directed to pay suitable amount of compensation to the petitioner who is a victim in terms of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount of compensation be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the victim for a period of two years.

9. Copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the State respondents for necessary compliance. Let the copy of this order be also sent to Member Secretary, RSLSA and Secretary, DLSA for necessary compliance. '

5. Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

refute the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

6. In view of the submissions made above, the present writ

petition is disposed of in the same terms as X Vs. The State of

Rajasthan and Ors. (supra).

7. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(SUNIL BENIWAL),J 188-ajayS/-

(Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 05:19:33 PM)