Kiran Raj

The Orissa High Court has directed the termination of the pregnancy of a 13-year-old girl, following medical confirmation that continuing the pregnancy would pose a severe risk to her life and well-being. The judgment mandates immediate medical intervention and instructs the state government to establish a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline such cases in the future.

The petitioner, the father of the minor girl, approached the Orissa High Court seeking permission for the medical termination of his daughter’s pregnancy. The girl, born on June 12, 2011, is a 13-year-old student in the 7th standard and belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. She has been diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, both recognized disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

In August 2024, the minor was repeatedly raped by an individual identified as Dinesh Pradhan from Kandhamal District. Due to threats from the accused, she did not disclose the incident. Over time, she experienced deteriorating health, including irregular menstrual cycles, body pain, and abdominal discomfort. Her mother took her for a medical evaluation, which revealed that she was approximately six months pregnant.

Since the pregnancy exceeded the 24-week legal limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the victim’s mother reported the matter to the police on February 11, 2025, leading to the registration of an FIR under PS Case No. 28 of 2025 at G. Udaygiri Police Station. The case was lodged under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

A medico-legal examination confirmed the victim’s pre-existing medical conditions. Further tests conducted on February 13, 2025, verified that the pregnancy had exceeded 24 weeks. Subsequently, she was admitted to MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, where medical professionals advised that carrying the pregnancy to term would pose a significant threat to her life due to her age, medical conditions, and trauma.

The court examined the Medical Board’s report, which stated that "continuation of the pregnancy poses a grave risk to the minor’s life and physical and mental well-being." The Board unanimously recommended immediate termination to prevent life-threatening complications.

Referring to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the court noted that Section 5 allows termination beyond 24 weeks if necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life. The Court cited Explanation 1 to Section 3(2), which presumes that pregnancies resulting from rape cause "grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman."

The judgment referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Union of India (2023), which permitted termination beyond 24 weeks in cases involving substantial foetal abnormalities or when the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. The Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision in ABC v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. was also cited, where termination was allowed for a 14-year-old rape survivor with Sickle Cell Anaemia carrying a 28-week pregnancy.

The Supreme Court judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) was referenced, affirming that reproductive choices are integral to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment noted that "the right to make reproductive choices finds firm footing within the constitutionally enshrined guarantees of life and personal liberty."

The Court highlighted procedural delays, noting that the pregnancy was confirmed on February 13, 2025, but judicial intervention was sought only on March 3, 2025. The Court remarked that delays force victims and their families into prolonged legal battles when immediate medical intervention is necessary. "The urgency inherent in the termination of pregnancy, particularly in cases of sexual assault, brooks no unnecessary delay."

International jurisprudence was also considered, with reference to the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in R v. Morgentaler (1988), which upheld bodily autonomy as a fundamental right.

The Court observed that the case involved the fundamental rights of the petitioner, particularly concerning bodily autonomy, dignity, and reproductive choices. The Medical Board confirmed that continuing the pregnancy posed a grave risk to the petitioner’s life and health. The Court reviewed relevant legal provisions, including the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and judicial precedents on reproductive rights.

"In light of the legal framework, the medical opinion, and the fundamental rights at stake, this Court finds no justification to deny the Petitioner’s plea. The law is not meant to stand in the way of dignity and justice but to uphold them. The medical termination of pregnancy in this case is not only legally permissible but also morally imperative."

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the termination procedure is carried out without delay.

"Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, and the concerned authorities are directed to ensure the procedure is carried out without further delay or obstruction."

The Court issued specific directions to the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, for the formulation and implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) concerning medical termination of pregnancy. The directives included:

• Development of SOP:

The Health and Family Welfare Department shall develop a comprehensive SOP for medical termination of pregnancy, ensuring adherence to the pre-requisites established in X v. Union of India.

• Consultation with Experts:

The SOP shall be drafted in consultation with medical experts specializing in obstetrics, gynaecology, and reproductive health, alongside legal professionals well-versed in medical jurisprudence.

• Notification and Dissemination:

Upon finalization, the SOP shall be formally notified and disseminated to all Government and Private Healthcare Institutions across the State.

• Timely Processing and Removal of Bureaucratic Delays:

The SOP should ensure a smooth and timely process for medical termination of pregnancy, removing avoidable delays and preventing unnecessary bureaucracy or legal hurdles.

• Psychological Support for the Survivor:

Recognizing the emotional and psychological impact of such cases, the concerned authorities shall ensure that psychological counselling services are available. In cases involving minors, a qualified child psychologist shall provide appropriate support.

• Periodic Review of SOP Implementation:

The Health and Family Welfare Department shall periodically review the implementation of the SOP and take necessary corrective measures to address any inefficiencies.

• Sensitization of Police Authorities:

Police stations need to be sensitized through proper directions to immediately involve the District Legal Service Authority or Para-Legal Volunteers so that victims receive immediate legal assistance.

• Implementation Timeline:

The concerned Department is directed to take necessary steps for the formulation of the SOP, ensuring its completion within six months from the date of this judgment.

The Court also noted that interim orders, if any, stand vacated.

"Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated."

Case Title: X v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 5396 of 2025
Bench: Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi

[Read/Download order]