MP High Court: Consent Of Pregnant Woman Paramount Under MTP Act | Directs Medical Boards To Give Complete And Cogent Opinions On Termination Cases
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra held that the consent of a pregnant woman in matters of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. The Court directed that in absence of such consent, no order for termination of pregnancy can be passed. The writ petition was disposed of with instructions that trial courts and medical boards must adhere strictly to the statutory framework under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and the standard operating procedures prescribed by the High Court.
The matter arose when a letter dated 23 August 2025 addressed to the Principal Registrar (Judicial) was placed before the Court, which treated the letter as a suo motu writ petition. The facts disclosed that the prosecutrix, a minor aged approximately 17 years, was subjected to sexual assault and rape. An FIR was registered as Crime No. 74 of 2025 at Police Station Ramnagar, District Maihar, for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 64(2)(h), and 332(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) as well as Sections 5(l)/6 and 5(q)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
During the course of medical examination, the prosecutrix was found pregnant. The medical report dated 22 August 2025 indicated that she was at 28 weeks of gestation, with mild anemia. The report further stated that since the gestational age was more than 28 weeks, the fetus had crossed the threshold of viability. It was recorded that the pregnancy could either be terminated or continued, depending on the consent of the victim or her guardians.
Simultaneously, the trial court order sheet of 22 August 2025 recorded that both the prosecutrix and her mother clearly stated that they did not wish to terminate the pregnancy. The prosecutrix also disclosed that she had solemnized marriage with the accused and desired that he be released from jail.
Despite this, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan, referred the matter to the High Court for directions regarding termination of pregnancy. The referral was made without the requisite consent of the victim or her guardian.
At this stage, the High Court was called upon to determine whether any direction for termination could be issued in the absence of such consent. In examining the matter, the Court took note of precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in A v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 6 SCC 327, which emphasized the health of the woman and the primacy of her consent in reproductive matters. The Court also noted the earlier ruling in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1, wherein a three-Judge Bench recognized the right to make reproductive choices as an intrinsic part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The statutory framework under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 was also cited. Section 3 provides conditions under which pregnancies may be terminated. It lays down that up to 20 weeks, termination may be permitted by a single registered medical practitioner; between 20 and 24 weeks, by two practitioners for prescribed categories of women; and beyond 24 weeks only in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board. Section 3(4)(b) unequivocally states that “no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.”
The Court further referred to its own earlier decision in In Reference (Suo Motu) v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025, decided on 20 February 2025, where detailed SOPs were framed for cases exceeding 24 weeks of pregnancy. These SOPs mandate that once the medical report indicates pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, the district courts must refer the matter to the High Court through the Registry, and termination may be considered only by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In the present matter, since the victim was carrying a 28-week pregnancy, these SOPs were applicable. However, the absence of consent rendered any order for termination impermissible under law.
Justice Vishal Mishra recorded that “the consent of a pregnant woman in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. Once there is no consent, no order regarding termination of pregnancy can be passed.”
Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court noted: “The right to make reproductive choices is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount. The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone.”
On the role of trial courts, the judgment stated: “In the instant case, the consent was not given for termination of pregnancy. The age of prosecutrix to be 17 years and the medical report dated 22.08.2025 shows that she was carrying pregnancy of more than 28 weeks; however, she wants to continue the pregnancy, therefore, there was no occasion for the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan District Satna (M.P.) to have referred the matter to this Court for passing an order with respect to termination of pregnancy.”
Further, the Court expressed concern regarding routine referrals: “It is generally seen that in cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the references are made to this Court in a casual manner. The SOPs prepared in Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025 are required to be followed in such cases.”
The Court also remarked upon medical boards: “It is also seen that the opinions of the medical board placed before this Court for consideration are not giving complete information as required under the MTP Act. There should be specific observations and clear opinion in terms of the requirements under Section 3 of the MTP Act.”
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It declared that since the prosecutrix and her mother had not consented to termination of pregnancy, and the medical report confirmed gestational age beyond 28 weeks, no order of termination could be passed.
The SOPs laid down in In Reference (Suo Motu) v. State of M.P., Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025, must be adhered to in all future cases involving pregnancies beyond 24 weeks, particularly where the prosecutrix is a survivor of sexual assault.
The Medical Boards constituted under the Act must provide “complete, cogent and clear opinions with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971”, explicitly stating whether continuance of pregnancy involves risk to life or grave injury, or whether the fetus suffers from any serious abnormality.
Finally, the Registrar General of the High Court was instructed to circulate the copy of the order to all Principal District and Sessions Judges across Madhya Pradesh as well as to the State Medical Board to ensure compliance and consistency in future cases.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the State: Shri Alok Agnihotri – Government Advocate
Case Title: Prosecutrix X v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:40423
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 34145 of 2025
Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra
