Kiran Raj

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench has issued directions regarding the termination of pregnancy in cases involving sexual assault and rape. The court stated that pregnancies up to 24 weeks may be terminated without judicial intervention if they fall within the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. It further held that for pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, judicial permission remains necessary. A standard operating procedure (SOP) has been established to streamline the process and ensure that survivors receive timely medical assistance without unnecessary delays.

The order states: “In view of aforementioned legal provisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that in case of survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, the pregnancy up to 20 weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner and where the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, by two registered medical practitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and rules framed thereunder without taking resort to judicial proceedings before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

The matter was taken up suo motu by the Madhya Pradesh High Court following divergent opinions from its Indore and Jabalpur benches. The Indore bench, in an order dated December 12, 2024, in Writ Petition No. 39431 of 2024, directed that district courts refer all cases of pregnancy termination to the High Court for adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Jabalpur bench, in Writ Petition No. 3491 of 2025, on January 28, 2025, stated that pregnancies up to 24 weeks do not require court approval and can be terminated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, without judicial intervention.

The High Court initiated suo motu proceedings to resolve the inconsistencies between the two orders and to establish a uniform procedure for handling such cases. The court observed that delays in processing termination requests could have serious medical and psychological consequences for survivors. The case of a rape survivor in Crime No. 532/2024, registered at Mehidpur Police Station, District Ujjain, was noted, where procedural delays in obtaining court approval led to a time-sensitive situation.

To address these concerns, the court considered two legal questions: the permissible procedure for termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and whether judicial intervention under Article 226 is required in all cases.

The court referred to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and its provisions regarding pregnancy termination. It recorded that Section 3(2)(a) permits termination up to 20 weeks by a single registered medical practitioner, while Section 3(2)(b) allows termination up to 24 weeks for specific categories of women, including survivors of sexual assault, with the approval of two registered medical practitioners.

The court observed: “Considering the provisions of MTP Act 1971, pregnancy can be terminated by a registered medical practitioner without there being an order of the Court, if the case falls within the purview of Section 3(2)(A) or under Section 5(1) or under Section 3(2)(B) of MTP Act, 1971.”

It referred to Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2021), which explicitly states that survivors of rape and incest are eligible for termination up to 24 weeks. In such cases, judicial intervention is not necessary unless the pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks.

The court also considered Rule 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Rules, 2020, which mandates that medical professionals provide emergency care without requiring legal or magisterial authorization. It stated: “Rule 6(3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 also enjoins upon the medical practitioner, hospital or other medical facility center rendering emergency medical care to a child not to demand any legal or magisterial requisition or other documentation as a pre-requisite to rendering such care.”

The court stated that termination of pregnancies up to 24 weeks should not require judicial approval if they fall within the parameters set by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. However, for pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, judicial intervention remains necessary, and such cases must be referred to the High Court under Article 226.

To ensure consistency in handling these cases, the court outlined a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). It stated that for pregnancies up to 24 weeks, the Station House Officer (SHO) must forward the survivor to the district court, which will then refer her to a medical board. If the board confirms that termination is permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the procedure may proceed without judicial intervention.

For pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks, the district court must refer the case to the High Court, which will determine whether termination should be permitted. The High Court directed that any forensic evidence collected during the termination procedure must be preserved for investigative purposes.

The judgment also addressed privacy concerns, citing Section 5A of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. It directed that all concerned authorities strictly comply with the privacy protections outlined in the statute.

The order concluded: “In view of above, all the concerned are directed to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid guidelines in letter and spirit, failing which shall amount to contemptuous act on the part of the erring officer and the contempt proceeding shall be initiated against the erring officer under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.”

The High Court mandated that copies of the order be circulated to relevant authorities, including the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Advocate General’s office, district courts, the Principal Secretary of Medical and Health Services, and the Director General of Police.

Case Title: In Reference (Suo Motu) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain

[Read/Download order]