Gujarat High Court Permits Termination Of 33-Week Pregnancy | Says 13-Year-Old Rape Survivor Has A Long Life Ahead
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Gujarat Single Bench of Justice Nirzar S. Desai held that medical termination of a 33-week pregnancy in the case of a 13-year-old rape survivor was legally permissible in view of medical advice and parental consent. The Court directed the hospital authorities to proceed with the termination after ensuring the presence of necessary medical experts and obtaining informed consent in a language understood by the victim's guardians. The Court further instructed that the procedure be carried out at the earliest with utmost care and appropriate medical arrangements.
The matter involved a minor girl aged 13, who was a victim of a rape case registered under FIR No. 11208051250359 dated 29 April 2025 at B Division Police Station, Rajkot City. The offences cited were punishable under Sections 351(3), 64(2)(m), and 65(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 12, 4, 6, and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The petitioner approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking urgent relief in the form of medical termination of pregnancy (MTP), which had advanced to 31 weeks and 5 days at the time of filing. The plea pointed out the girl's extremely young age, physical health concerns, and the mental trauma stemming from the incident of rape, urging that continuation of pregnancy would cause grave injury to her mental and physical health.
The petition also sought directions to ensure that the fetal tissue drawn during the MTP be handed over in a scientific manner to the investigating police authority for onward transmission to the forensic science laboratory for DNA identification.
An earlier order dated 8 May 2025 issued by a Coordinate Bench directed the victim to present herself for medical examination at Shri Pandit Dindayal Upadhyaya General Hospital, Rajkot, on 9 May 2025. The Court instructed that the medical panel should assess the gestational stage, health condition, and feasibility of MTP and provide a report to the Court.
Subsequently, on 10 May 2025, the Medical Superintendent of the hospital submitted a detailed report. The panel of doctors—including specialists in gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry, radiology, and internal medicine—conducted a comprehensive examination of the victim.
The physician noted that the girl had moderate anemia, with a hemoglobin level of 9.0 gm%, and was at high cardiopulmonary risk for termination. The pediatrician stated that fetal complications such as prematurity and the need for neonatal intensive care were probable due to the gestational age of 33 weeks. The radiologist confirmed the gestational age to be approximately 32 weeks and 6 days as of 9 May 2025.
The psychiatrist indicated that the victim had mild intellectual disability and recommended termination of pregnancy. The gynecologist confirmed the gestational findings and outlined multiple risks associated with continued pregnancy and delivery at such a young age. These included pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, cesarean delivery risks such as hemorrhage and septicemia, and even maternal death.
The medical board concluded that MTP could be conducted only after correction of anemia and with full awareness and consent of the legal guardian, considering the very high risk involved.
The Court stated: “I have considered the fact that the present applicant is only 13 years of age and she has a long life before her and as the MTP is possible, as per the aforesaid report, the ends of justice shall be met by making the parents / guardians of the victim girl understand the risk of MTP and after obtaining their consent in the language they understand or the vernacular language and after obtaining their signatures expressively to the effect that despite knowing the risk factors of performing MTP, they gave consent for the same.”
The Court noted the recommendations of the medical board and the comprehensive evaluation: “After considering all factor related to very young age of victim, advance gestational age and medical condition like moderate anemia and mental condition and low IQ level, continuation of pregnancy will further increases risk of mother.”
It recorded the panel’s opinion regarding the need for due diligence and medical support: “Termination of pregnancy can be done after evaluation and correction of anemia with due high risk of complication of victim related to termination of pregnancy as mentioned above and fatal complication of prematurity after consents of legal guardian.”
The Court also remarked upon the infrastructure and preparedness needed for the procedure: “Respondent No.3 – In-charge Medical Officer and Medical Superintendent, PDU General Hospital, Rajkot, is directed to perform the procedure of MTP, looking to the age of the victim girl, after taking all possible care and caution and after making arrangements for all the medical facilities, which may require during the performance of MTP, i.e. arrangement of blood etc., at the earliest and if possible, today, itself.”
The Court directed that Respondent No.3, the In-charge Medical Officer and Medical Superintendent of PDU General Hospital, Rajkot, perform the procedure of medical termination of pregnancy for the minor victim, considering her age, after making arrangements for all necessary medical facilities and with utmost care and caution.
The Court ordered that the procedure be carried out at the earliest, preferably on the same day, if feasible. It was further directed that experts from various branches of medicine whose presence might be required during the procedure be kept available.
The Court instructed that the consent of the victim’s legal guardians be obtained after explaining all associated medical risks in a language they understand or their vernacular language. Their signatures were to be obtained in writing to expressly acknowledge that the risks were explained and consent was given voluntarily.
The Court directed the learned APP to inform Respondent No.3 of this order and to facilitate the necessary procedural steps. The learned advocate for the petitioner was also asked to communicate the order to the victim’s parents or guardians and ensure their presence at the hospital with the victim for compliance.
The Court stated that direct service of the order was permitted.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P.V. Patadiya, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Megha Chitaliya, Public Prosecutor for State of Gujarat
Case Title: ABC (Victim) v. State of Gujarat & Others
Case Number: R/Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 7065 of 2025
Bench: Justice Nirzar S. Desai
[Read/Download order]
