Allowing a 14-year-old sexual assault survivor to end her 26-week pregnancy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has told trial courts to attach a Medical Board report to every such request, noting that “every moment is of considerable significance”.
Gwalior: Trial courts in Madhya Pradesh must annex a Medical Board report whenever they forward a request for medical termination of pregnancy, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed while permitting the termination of the 26-week pregnancy of a minor girl, a survivor of an offence under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, after a Medical Board confirmed the procedure was feasible [In Reference (Prosecutrix X) v. State of Madhya Pradesh].
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the order on November 7, 2026, on a reference made by the Special Judge (POCSO), with Government Advocate Dharmendra Nayak appearing for the State. In keeping with the law, LawChakra is not disclosing any detail that could identify the minor.
A rule for every trial court
Before parting with the matter, the Court directed all trial courts that, in every request for medical termination of pregnancy, a Medical Board report addressing the victim’s medical condition, the gestational age and the feasibility and advisability of termination must be annexed when the record is forwarded.
“It is needless to emphasise that in matters involving medical termination of pregnancy, every moment is of considerable significance, and even a delay of a single day may have serious and irreversible consequences for the victim, both medically and legally.”
The order is to be circulated to the Registrar General at Jabalpur and the Benches at Indore and Gwalior, all district courts in Madhya Pradesh and the Advocate General’s office.
How the matter reached the High Court
The material before the Court, including a communication from the Child Welfare Committee, showed that the girl, aged about 14, was carrying a pregnancy of about 26 weeks and 1 day. Following the procedure laid down by a Division Bench in In Reference (Suo Motu) v. State of Madhya Pradesh (W.P. No. 5184/2025, decided February 20, 2025), the trial court sent the matter for medical examination and then to the High Court.
On November 6, the High Court called for a specific report from the Medical Board at a government medical college hospital in Gwalior on the feasibility and safety of termination. The Board’s first report of November 7 said the procedure could be done with proper facilities if all investigation reports were normal. The Court found this lacked “any clear and categorical opinion” and asked the Government Advocate to obtain clarification the same day.
The second report stated that the ECHO report was normal and that termination could be carried out after ensuring the availability of blood. The Court held that this report “lends support to the prayer made for termination of pregnancy”.
The legal basis for allowing termination
Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 5(1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 came up for consideration, including the statutory presumption that anguish caused by a pregnancy resulting from rape is a grave injury to mental health. Since the pregnancy was beyond the 24-week limit, the Court relied on the Division Bench ruling that the High Court may act under Article 226 in such cases.
“The Court cannot lose sight of the age of the minor, the circumstances in which the pregnancy has occurred, the trauma suffered by her and the mental agony which she is presently facing.”
Directions for the procedure
Allowing the petition, the Court directed the hospital’s Dean or Medical Superintendent to constitute a team of senior doctors from Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Anaesthesia, Medicine and Paediatrics to carry out the procedure at 4 PM on November 7, subject to the minor being found fit just before it, with her haemoglobin rechecked and precautions taken against excessive bleeding.
The procedure must take place where emergency treatment, blood transfusion, anaesthesia, intensive care and neonatal care are available. The minor and her parents are to be counselled on the risks, including those linked to anaemia, and consent obtained under law. If the child is born alive, doctors must give it necessary medical and neonatal care. Relying on Shaikh Ayesha Khatoon v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 11), the Court directed that the parents be sensitised on the risks and granted the doctors who gave opinions immunity from liability in any resulting litigation.
The medical team must preserve records and samples, including DNA samples if required by the investigating officer or the trial court, and file a confidential compliance report. The minor’s identity, confidentiality and dignity are to be strictly maintained in all records and communications, the Court ordered.
Why the order matters
Beyond 24 weeks, the MTP Act leaves little room except through a Medical Board and the High Court’s writ jurisdiction. The order reaffirms that for a child survivor, the Court weighs her age, trauma and future against a clear medical opinion, and that a vague or conditional Board report is not enough to act on.
The general direction is the practical takeaway. By requiring trial courts to attach a specific Medical Board report with every reference, the High Court aims to cut the back-and-forth that costs days in cases where, as it put it, a single day’s delay can have irreversible consequences.
Case Title: In Reference (Prosecutrix X) v. State of Madhya Pradesh [Writ Petition No. 47352 of 2026; 2026:MPHC-GWL:34443]
Bench: Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
Date of Order: November 7, 2026
Appearance: Government Advocate Dharmendra Nayak for the State
If you know of a child in need of care and protection, call CHILDLINE at 1098.