Victim M vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1585 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Victim M vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 February, 2026

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

                                                                   2026:UHC:1454
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                Criminal Writ Petition No. 382 of 2026


Victim M                                                     ........ Petitioner
                                     Versus



State Of Uttarakhand and others                            ........Respondents

Present:
Mr. Prince Chauhan learned legal aid counsel for the petitioner through V.C.
Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A with Mrs. Sweta Badola, learned Brief Holder for the
State.

Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the victim M female with the following relief:-

(i) To issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, pursuant to the application filed by the mother of the Petitioner before the learned special Judge (POCSO)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dehradun.

(ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to constitute a duly authorized State Medical Board in terms of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, for the purpose of examining the petitioner and submitting its opinion regarding the medical termination of her pregnancy within a time-bound period, and thereafter to permit termination of the pregnancy in accordance with the opinion of the said Medical Board and in the interest of justice.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is minor and a victim of an incident and now she is pregnant of 28 weeks and as such respondent be directed to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021. On the previous date vide order dated 25.02.2026 the learned A.G.A informed to this Court that the Medical Board 12 members has already been constituted and

2026:UHC:1454 today Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. place before this Court the report of the Medical Board headed by Director General of State Medical Council as a Chairman and on pursuant of the report it reveals that the victim examined on 24 and 25 February 2026, and opined that the age of the victim is 14 years having 28 weeks pregnany and she is in high risk pregnancy.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the pregnancy can be terminated if the pregnancy exceed twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty four weeks. Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 is read as under :-

12. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act provides, that notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code, 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 the Act.

13. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act provides, that 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 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

2026:UHC:1454 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 the 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 the Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be prescribed by rules made under the 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.

4. He further submits that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, was further amended by Act No. 08 of 2021, wherein Section 3 has been amended and for sub section 2 the following sub section has been substituted which reads as under:-

"(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 such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are."

2026:UHC:1454

5. He further placed reliance to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A(Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra & another Civil Appeal No. 5194 of 2024 decided on 29.04.2024 wherein in para 26 and 27 Section 3 of MTP Act has been dealt with are being reproduced as under:

"26. The report failed to form an opinion on the impact of the pregnancy on the physical and mental health of the pregnant person. If a pregnant person meets the condition under Section 3(2-B) of the MTP Act then there would be no need for any permission by the courts. Therefore, whenever a pregnant person approaches the High Court or this Court, it is imperative for the medical board to opine on the physical and mental health of the pregnant person.This court in XYZ v. State of Gujarat,11 held that the medical board or the High Court cannot refuse abortion merely on the ground that the gestational age of the pregnancy is above the statutory prescription. In light of the peculiar circumstances of that case where the pregnancy was detrimental to the physical and mental health of the pregnant person, this Court held that:

"10. We find that in the absence of even noticing the aforesaid portion of the report, the High Court was not right in simply holding that "the age of the foetus is almost 27 weeks as on 17.08.2023 and considering the statements made by the learned advocate for the petitioner-victim and the averments made in the application the petition for medical termination of pregnancy stands rejected", which, in our view is ex facie contradictory.

19. The whole object of preferring a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to engage with the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional power. Such a power is vested with the constitutional courts and discretion has to be exercised judiciously and having regard to the facts of the case and by taking into consideration the relevant facts while leaving out irrelevant considerations and not vice versa."

27. 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."

6. In para 21 the role of RMP and medical board under the MTP Act has also been discussed which also reads as under:-

2026:UHC:1454 "21. In X v. State (NCT of Delhi),4 a three-judge bench of this Court had recognised that the fear of prosecution among registered medical practitioners5 is a barrier for pregnant persons6 to access safe and legal abortions. The opinion of the RMP is decisive in matters of termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act. The purpose of the opinion of the RMP borrows from the legislative intent of the MTP Act which is to protect the health of a pregnant person and facilitate safe, hygienic, and legal abortion. The right to abortion is a concomitant right of dignity, autonomy and reproductive choice. This right is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision to terminate pregnancy is deeply personal for any person. The choice exercised by a pregnant person is not merely about their reproductive freedom but also about their agency as recognised by this court in X v. State (NCT of Delhi).7 It is therefore imperative that the fundamental right of a pregnant person is not compromised for reasons other than to protect the physical and mental health of the pregnant person.

7. In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court dealt with part III of the Constitution of India for enforcing the fundamental rights which deals with the power vested under the Constitution to the constitutional court. In this para the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that 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 and in doing so the court relies on the opinion of the medical board constituted under the MTP Act for their medical expertise. It has been further observed that they apply their judicial mind to the opinion of the medical board and furthermore 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.

2026:UHC:1454

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the aforesaid judgment submits that since as per the report of the medical board the petitioner is in highrisk pregnancy, therefore, the permission should be granted for termination of the pregnancy. In support of his argument he further placed reliance to judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 04.02.2022 in a Writ Petition No. 201 of 2022 (M/S) which deals with a case of a victim whose pregnancy was found twenty-eight weeks and 5 days. By referring the judgment, learned counsel submits that the facts of this case are identical to the facts of Writ Petition No. 201 of 2022 (M/S) wherein the Coordinate Bench permit to terminate the pregnancy.

9. In support of his argument he also further placed reliance to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A vs. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 75 wherein the permission was granted for termination of pregnancy where the gestational age was 25- 26 weeks. Similar view has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sarmishtha Chakrabortty and Another vs. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 339, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted termination of the pregnancy when the gestational age was 26 weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the case of Murugan Nayakkar vs. Union of India, 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1092, has also allowed medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory outer limit prescribed in the Act considering the fact that the victim was 13 years old and in trauma, even though the Board stated that termination will have equal danger for the mother.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admittedly is the victim under the POCSO Act and

2026:UHC:1454 there is a right to termination pregnancy subject to the condition as enumerated under the provisions of the MTP Act.

11. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, the learned A.G.A. also submits that as per the report of Medical Board since the victim is only 14 years old and is in high risk pregnancy, therefore, the permission can be granted for termination of pregnancy.

12. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after gone through with the judgment as relied upon by the petitioner as well as the report of Medical Board, this Court is of the firm opinion that if the petitioner is compelled to continue with her pregnancy, it would infringe her life to live with human dignity, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the present case, this Court is of the view it would be appropriate in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the provisions of the Act with the following directions: -

(i) The medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner who is minor and the victim should be carried out by a senior most Gynecologist under the guidance of members of the Medical Board within 48 hours from today. The learned A.G.A. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, shall inform today itself to the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun.

(ii) During the procedure of medical termination, if the doctors find that there is any risk to the life of the petitioner, the doctors and members of the board have a discretion to cancel the said procedure.

2026:UHC:1454

(iii) The Medical Board on completion of the procedure of medical termination of pregnancy shall maintain complete record and shall collect tissue and blood sample of the foetus for conducting DNA and other tests.

(iv) If the child is born alive, the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun, the respondent no.3 as well as Child Welfare Committee, Dehradun, will do the needful in accordance with law. Child Welfare Committee Dehradun though is not the respondents but the learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the petitioner shall inform about this direction to the Child Welfare Committee, Dehradun, today itself.

13. Since the order is dictated in the open court and the Holi vacations are starting from tomorrow, in such an eventuality, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A shall immediately inform to the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun, to proceed with the medical termination of pregnancy by referring the victim to the higher centre of AIIMS Rishikesh. Mr. Tumul Nainwal learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the petitioner shall immediately inform the Director of AIIMS Rishikesh about these directions, so that,the Director AIIMS Rishikesh may make necessary arrangements, and depute immediately a Gynecologist today itself without waiting the copy of this order and the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun, the Child Welfare Committee, Dehradun as well as the members of the Medical Board including the Director of AIIMS Rishikesh shall comply the communication of the learned A.G.A. Mr. Tumul Nainwal who will sent the letter to all the officials today itself. In addition to this the Secretary of High Court State Legal Services Committee is also directed to issue necessary instructions to the Chief Medical Officer, Dehradun as well as

2026:UHC:1454 the Director of AIIMS Dehradun with a request to comply the directions forthwith. All the expenses shall borne by the State. All the officials to whom the directions have been issued shall follow and comply the letter issued by Mr. Tumul Nainwal, learned A.G.A. for the State forthwith.

14. Subject to the observations and directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of finally.

15. Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to all the officials to whom the directions has been issued.

(Rakesh Thapliyal,J.) 27.02.2026 Nahid