Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka, Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the medical authorities at a government hospital to terminate the pregnancy of a 13-year-old minor victim of sexual assault, as recommended by the medical board, and to preserve the foetus for DNA testing to aid the criminal investigation. The Court instructed the police to conduct the test, ordered the State to bear the entire medical and related expenses, and asked the District Legal Services Authority to process compensation under the statutory scheme for survivors of sexual assault. Additionally, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for the Protection and Rehabilitation of Minor Victims of Sexual Offences, which will have a binding effect on all agencies and authorities involved.

The petition concerned a 13-year-old minor victim of a sexual offence, represented by her mother and natural guardian, seeking multiple directions relating to the termination of pregnancy. The petitioner was a Class 7 student residing with her family and an uncle, who introduced the accused to the household. It was alleged that the accused committed forcible sexual intercourse and threatened the petitioner. The pregnancy was detected during a medical examination, following which an FIR was registered under Sections 4(2), 5(j), 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita, 2023.

Also Read: ‘Judiciary Draws Its Strength From Discipline, Not Dominion’: Supreme Court Quashes Bombay High Court Order on Private Forests for Ignoring Binding Precedent

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the hospital to terminate the pregnancy, preserve the fetus for DNA testing, direct the police to conduct DNA analysis, require the State to bear medical and counselling expenses, and direct the District Legal Services Authority to release compensation. The submissions included concerns about the petitioner’s age, psychological trauma, inability to continue education, and the family’s socio-economic limitations. The petitioner asserted her right to bodily autonomy.

The Court referred the petitioner to a Medical Board. The report dated 15.10.2025 recorded opinions of specialists including a paediatrician, radiologist, anaesthetist, obstetrician, and psychiatrist. The Board concluded that termination could be safely carried out and noted the physical and psychological risks to the minor if the pregnancy continued. The Court also considered statutory provisions under the POCSO Act, the MTP framework, and investigative needs relating to DNA preservation.

After examining the Medical Board’s report, the Court stated that “the Medical Board has opined that termination of pregnancy could be carried out.” It noted that the paediatrician had observed that “the pregnancy could have physical and psychological effects including traumatic impact on the mental health of a 13-year-old,” and that the radiologist, anaesthetist, obstetrician, and psychiatrist had all agreed that “MTP can be performed.”

The Court further observed that “taking into consideration the age of the minor victim, the possibility of severe mental trauma being caused to the victim as also the possibility of the child, if born, not being capable of being taken proper care by the petitioner and/or her family, it would not be in her interest to continue a forced pregnancy arising out of an offence of rape.”

Justice Govindaraj noted: “Directions having been issued on several occasions, they continue to be ignored, and there is no compliance. I am of the opinion that all these could be resolved if a proper SOP is formulated by the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare and the Director General of Police for all stakeholders to comply with. Until then, I propose to formulate the following indicative SOP, which would be in force until such a SOP is formulated.”

“This SOP shall have a binding effect on all agencies and authorities specified herein” and that it was being issued under “the inherent, supervisory, and superintendence powers of the High Court of Karnataka as enshrined in Articles 227 and 235 of the Constitution of India.”

“Every minor victim of a sexual offence shall be deemed a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, automatically invoking the jurisdiction and protection of the Child Welfare Committee from the moment the offence is reported.”

It recorded the establishment of a “Digital POCSO Portal (DPP)” as “a secure, integrated, cloud-based software platform mandated by this SOP for end-to-end case management, inter-agency communication, data sharing, and compliance monitoring.” Each victim would be assigned “a Pseudonym Identifier (PID), a unique, system-generated alphanumeric code used in place of the victim’s real name in all case records, communications, orders, and judgments to ensure anonymity.”

The SOP also specified “an individual appointed by the CWC in accordance with Rule 4(7) of the POCSO Rules, 2020, to render informational, emotional, and practical assistance to the child throughout the investigation and trial process.”

It provided for “a dedicated, 24/7 unit established in designated government and private hospitals, staffed by trained female medical officers, nurses, and counsellors, to provide immediate and comprehensive medico-legal psychological care to victims.”

The Court directed that “within seven days of the offence being reported, the psychologist or clinical psychiatric social worker assigned by the District Child Protection Unit shall conduct a comprehensive trauma assessment. Based on this assessment, a Psychological Support Plan (PSP) must be prepared.” The Court recorded that “the PSP must be tailored to the child’s age, developmental stage, and specific psychological needs, detailing the therapeutic modality, frequency of sessions, and measurable therapeutic goals.”

It observed that “the PSP will be appended to the child’s Individual Care Plan on the DPP for monitoring by the CWC. Therapy shall continue for a minimum of two years post incident or until the treating psychologist certifies that the child has achieved psychological stability and recovery.”

The Court stated that “all communications and records from therapy sessions are strictly confidential and inadmissible as evidence in Court, protecting the therapeutic space.” It further recorded that “the District Child Protection Officer shall ensure the child and family are enrolled in government schemes for nutritional support and that the child must not be withdrawn from school unless medically unavoidable.”

If the assault occurred within the school environment, “the transfer must be facilitated discreetly and without publicly disclosing the reasons, to protect the child from stigma.” The Court noted that “the CWC shall continue to monitor the child’s progress through bi-monthly reports uploaded by the DCPO on the DPP until the child turns 18,” and “the rehabilitation file can be closed only after the child attains majority and the CWC certifies successful reintegration.”

In cases where the victim continues with the pregnancy, the Court observed that “the CWC shall formulate and approve an Integrated Mother-and-Child Care Plan (IMCCP) on the DPP, extending for a minimum of two years post-birth to cover the health, nutrition, and developmental needs of both the young mother and her infant.”

Finally, Justice Govindaraj recorded that “the effectiveness of this SOP shall be measured through a data-driven approach using DPP dashboards and key performance indicators, displaying real-time analytics.”

Coming back to the present case, the Court ordered the following:

“The writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to terminate the pregnancy of Petitioner in terms of the report dated 15.10.2025 which has been furnished by Medical Board. Respondent No.4 is directed to preserve the terminated fetus for the purpose of DNA testing and analysis in the criminal proceedings which are pending. Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct DNA test of the terminated fetus for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.0213/2025 registered by respondent No.2-Vishwanathpura Police Station.”

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Quashes Trial Court Order; Right To Lead Evidence First Rests With Plaintiff Even When Some Issues Burden Defendant

“Respondent No.1 is directed to bear the entire expenses of medical termination of pregnancy procedure as directed by this Court. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the compensation which is required to be paid in terms the compensation scheme for women victim/survivors of sexual assault which is being implemented by respondent No.3.”

“Though the above matter is disposed, re-list on 13.12.2025 for consideration of the report to be filed in pursuance of the general directions which have been issued.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. K. S. Ponnappa, Advocate

For the Respondents: Smt. Saritha Kulkarni, AGA for R1, R2, R4 to R6; Smt. B. V. Vidhulatha, Advocate for R3

Case Title: Ms. X v. State of Karnataka & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:43627
Case Number: WP No. 30971 of 2025
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj