Choice To Terminate Pregnancy Part Of Personal Liberty: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Minor Rape Survivor To End 21-Week Pregnancy
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Parth Prateem Sahu has permitted a minor survivor of rape and sexual assault to terminate her 21-week pregnancy and directed the district health authorities to conduct the procedure under the supervision of two registered medical practitioners, while preserving the foetal DNA sample for use in the connected criminal proceedings. The Court held that insisting on continuation of the pregnancy would infringe the survivor’s bodily integrity, intensify her mental trauma, and adversely affect her physical, psychological and mental health, and therefore could not be compelled. Relying on the Supreme Court’s “best interests” formulation in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Court treated the survivor’s welfare and decision to seek termination within the statutory limit as determinative.
A minor victim of rape filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy. The petitioner requested directions to the authorities to facilitate the procedure under medical supervision and to preserve the DNA sample of the fetus for evidentiary purposes in the related criminal case.
The Court initially directed the Chief Medical Health Officer to arrange a medical examination by a team of experts, including a gynecologist, to assess the petitioner’s health and feasibility of termination. Pursuant to this order, three medical practitioners from District Hospital Bilaspur examined the petitioner and submitted a report. The report confirmed that the gestation age was 21 weeks and one day, and termination could be performed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2021.
The statutory provisions referred to included Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended), which permits termination up to 24 weeks under specified conditions, and Section 5, which allows termination beyond statutory limits if necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. The petitioner’s case was presented on the basis of rape allegations and medical opinion supporting termination within the permissible statutory framework.
Justice Parth Prateem Sahu recorded that “the above quoted provision permits termination of pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner with regard to circumstances, formed in good faith, specified in sub-clauses (i) & (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1971 and when the length of pregnancy does not excess 24 weeks.”
The Court stated that “Explanation-I to sub-section (2) of Section 3 also provides that in no uncertain terms that where the pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.”
It was further observed that “Section 5 of the MTP Act provides for the situation when Sections 3 & 4 would have no application… where the life of pregnant woman is at risk, termination of pregnancy would be permissible despite the provision contained in sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the MTP Act.”
Quoting the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava, the Court noted that “the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of the other stakeholders such as guardians or the society in general.”
The Court also referred to X v. Union of India, recording that “we are satisfied that a clear finding has been recorded by the Medical Board, that the risk to the petitioner of continuation of her pregnancy can gravely endanger her physical and mental health… we are satisfied that it is permissible to allow the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy in terms of Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.”
In relation to the petitioner’s circumstances, the Court stated that “she is desirous of terminating pregnancy as she does not want to give birth to the child of a rapist. It is her personal choice to terminate pregnancy which the Court must respect as it is a facet of her personal liberty.”
The Court recorded that “not permitting rape victim in the present case to go in for medical termination of unwanted pregnancy would amount to compelling her to continue to bear such pregnancy for full duration and deliver the child, which would be violative of her bodily integrity, it would not only aggravate her mental trauma but would also have devastating effect on her overall health including on psychological and mental aspects.”
The Court directed that “this writ petition seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner, is allowed. She is permitted to approach respondent No.3 again where respondent No.3 shall ensure that petitioner is subjected to termination of her pregnancy after completing all other requisite formalities required for the same.”
“The respondent No.3 is further directed to issue instructions for the District Hospital authorities where she was earlier examined permitting her to be subjected to termination of her pregnancy under the supervision of two registered medical practitioners including Specialist Doctors in the field i.e. Department of Gynaecology.”
“The Superintendent of the District Hospital Bilaspur is also directed to ensure that the DNA sample of the foetus shall also be taken and preserved for further evidence of criminal case.”
“Let this exercise be carried out without any further delay and the petitioner is directed to approach before the respondent No.3 on 28.11.2025 for aforesaid purpose. Respondent No.3 shall further take all necessary steps.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Upasana Mehta, Govt. Advocate
Case Title: A v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:CGHC:57073
Case Number: WPC No. 6057 of 2025
Bench: Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
