Chhattisgarh High Court Allows 25-Week Pregnancy Termination For Minor Rape Survivor, Says Sonography Report Not Conclusive
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the gestational age reflected in a sonography report cannot be treated as conclusive for denying medical termination of pregnancy where doing so would result in violation of a rape survivor's fundamental rights. The Court observed that sonographic assessment of gestational age is only an estimate carrying a recognised margin of error and that constitutional courts must balance medical opinion with the pregnant woman's rights to dignity, bodily autonomy, privacy and reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by a minor rape survivor seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy, which had reached approximately 25 weeks and 5 days. Pursuant to an earlier order, a Medical Board constituted by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, examined the petitioner and reported that she was carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy with a gestational age of about 25 weeks and 5 days, suffered from anaemia, and that the foetus had no gross abnormality.
The Board opined that medical termination was not permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, primarily because the pregnancy had crossed twenty-four weeks. The petitioner, however, contended that continuation of the pregnancy resulting from sexual assault would cause grave mental trauma and infringe her reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity and dignity.
The Court, referring to various Supreme Court decisions, reiterated that reproductive autonomy is an inseparable facet of Article 21 and that the paramount consideration in cases of unwanted pregnancy is the dignity, bodily autonomy and mental health of the pregnant woman. The High Court emphasised that remedies are not foreclosed merely because a case falls outside the statutory framework of the MTP Act, and that rape survivors are entitled to the statutory presumption of grave mental injury under Explanation 2 to Section 3 of the Act.
“To compel such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to subjecting her to further trauma and would seriously impinge upon her bodily integrity, dignity, privacy and reproductive autonomy, all of which are facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court observed.
The Court further held that the Medical Board's opinion was advisory and could not curtail the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. It observed that sonography-based gestational age is only an estimate with a medically recognised margin of variation of approximately ±2 weeks and therefore cannot be treated as an inflexible basis to defeat the petitioner's constitutional rights.
Holding that compelling the petitioner to continue an unwanted pregnancy resulting from rape would perpetuate her trauma and violate her rights to dignity, privacy, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy, the Court concluded that the case warranted exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Raipur, to ensure that the petitioner was admitted within 24 hours to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, or another suitably equipped government tertiary care hospital for medical termination of pregnancy by a multidisciplinary team.
The Court further directed that informed consent be obtained, comprehensive pre- and post-operative medical care and psychological counselling be provided, the petitioner's identity be kept confidential, forensic evidence be preserved for the pending POCSO investigation, and a compliance report be submitted before the High Court within two weeks after completion of the procedure.
Case Title: X v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [WPC No. 3717 of 2026]