Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra, on 16th July 2025, issued a judicial order declining permission for the termination of pregnancy in a matter concerning a minor rape survivor. The court concluded the proceedings after confirming that the prosecutrix, though a minor, categorically refused both medical examination and the termination of her pregnancy. The court, while issuing final directions, ordered her placement at a state-run shelter home until she attains majority.

The writ petition was initiated suo moto by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, following a letter dated 12th July 2025 from the Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Mauganj District, Rewa. The letter requested judicial intervention to obtain permission for the termination of pregnancy of a rape survivor, who was identified as a minor.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Secretly Recorded Calls Between Spouses Are Admissible In Divorce Cases | Section 122 Evidence Act Does Not Bar Disclosure In Matrimonial Suits | Right To Fair Trial Outweighs Spousal Privacy Objection

Acting promptly, the High Court directed the concerned authorities on 15th July 2025 to ensure that the victim undergoes a medical examination. This directive aimed to ascertain the physical status of the prosecutrix and facilitate a judicially informed decision. In compliance with the order, police personnel visited the residence of the minor.

However, during the police interaction, the prosecutrix declined to undergo the scheduled medical examination. A Panchnama was prepared documenting her refusal, and her formal statement was also recorded.

This translated to a declaration of her current cohabitation with the alleged accused and her explicit decision against undergoing either a medical examination or pregnancy termination.

Upon reviewing the statement, the court observed that the prosecutrix was approximately 17 years old. It was evident from the records and submissions that she continued to reside in the house of the accused.

Given her age and the nature of the relationship, the court noted that despite her consent, she could not lawfully reside with the accused. As a result, the authorities were directed to retrieve her from the accused’s residence. Should her parents decline to accept custody or should she herself decline to return to her parental home, she was to be placed in Nari Niketan, a government-run women’s shelter.

The court stated that the care and safety of the minor were paramount, particularly in light of her pregnancy. It was reported in an earlier medical evaluation that she was 26 weeks and 4 days pregnant.

Justice Vishal Mishra referred to the binding precedent established in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2024) 6 SCC 327. In doing so, he relied heavily on judicial interpretation regarding reproductive rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The judgment quoted the following observation from the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X):

"In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has held that 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 judgement further noted: "The purport of this Court's decision in Suchita Srivastava was to protect the right to abortion on a firm footing as an intrinsic element of the fundamental rights to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity as well as to reaffirm that matters of sexual and reproductive choices belong to the individual alone."

The court clarified that State interference in such personal matters was unwarranted. As per the Supreme Court’s interpretation: "No entity, even if it is the State, can speak on behalf of a pregnant person and usurp her consent. The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone."

In the present case, the High Court noted: "In view of the fact that prosecutrix has not given any consent for undergoing termination of pregnancy and taking note of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, the termination of pregnancy in the present case cannot be ordered."

Also Read: PUMA Wins Rs. 8 Lakh Damages In Trademark Infringement Suit | Delhi High Court Slams Counterfeiter For Blatant Use Of Well-Known Mark And Non-Appearance

The court issued detailed instructions concerning the care, custody, and medical oversight of the prosecutrix. It stated: "The Police Authorities are directed to hand over the prosecutrix to her parents and if they are not willing to keep the prosecutrix with them or the prosecutrix shows her willingness not to reside with the parents, then she should be shifted to Nari Niketan (Mauganj/ Rewa) under intimation to the Superintendent of Police, District Mauganj."

Further, the order stated: "The Superintendent of Nari Niketan is directed to take all care and precaution with respect to the victim/ prosecutrix as she is having pregnancy of 26 weeks & 4 days as per earlier medical report. The prosecutrix shall stay at Nari Niketan till she attains the age of majority."

In view of the fact that prosecutrix has not given any consent for undergoing termination of pregnancy and taking note of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A (Mother of X) Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in (2024) 6 SCC 327, the termination of pregnancy in the present case cannot be ordered.

"With aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed off."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Respondents: Shri Alok Agnihotri - Government Advocate for the State

Case Title: Prosecutrix X v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:31843

Case Number: WP-27514-2025

Bench: Justice Vishal Mishra