The Karnataka High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by a 16-year-old survivor of sexual assault who sought medical termination of her pregnancy, after the State notified a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Early Identification and Timely Response to Underage Pregnancies. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav disposed of the petition filed through the survivor's mother as guardian. The mother had initially sought directions to the Hospital to admit and examine the petitioner, and take necessary medical steps to terminate her pregnancy.

The petitioner, a 16-year-old school student became a victim of sexual assault, and thereafter suppressed the factum of the same to the single mother until the pregnancy couldn't be concealed.

The Court had in July permitted termination of pregnancy subject to the opinion of doctors. The single judge bench had also directed that if the foetus was alive after the procedure, steps were to be taken for its healthy growth.

Noting that the petitioner had approached the Court after thirty weeks of gestation, the Court passed the following directions on 16^th July:

“…Taking note of the fact stated in the present case and the approach of the petitioner after 30 weeks, certain directions may be required to be passed regarding — (1) In case of sexual offences early detection, if the victim has conceived; (2) In light of the present facts and assertion of the petitioner that the foetus is alive even after MTP procedure has been carried out and the petitioner does not intend to retain the custody of the child and has decided to give up custody to the State, necessary directions may be required to ensure that the right to life of the foetus is honoured; (3) Other directions regarding adoption and care till the foetus is adopted is required to be passed”.

Adv. Swagatha Raha was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the matter afterwards. The Court also took note of a direction in an earlier writ petition [W.P. No. 27563/2023], where the State Government had been directed to prepare a detailed SOP in a similar set of circumstances.

The Court observed that the direction ought to be passed since the case was that of a victim of sexual assault, who, in normal circumstances, could have taken a decision regarding continuance or termination of pregnancy at the initial stage but was only able to approach the court after 30 weeks. The Court pointed out the reasons as either the victim being silenced by fear of societal shaming and stigma, or she being unaware of her legal right to termination of pregnancy, resulting in such delay 'putting herself in danger'.

“…In light of the plight of the victim of sexual assault, the Court felt that legal framework was silent and could not ameliorate the condition of a victim of sexual assault. This necessitated framing of an SOP addressing all aspects."

While the lis itself was disposed of, the Court proceeded to pass directions inviting suggestions from the petitioner, the State, and the Amicus Curiae towards formulation of an SOP.

By order dated 25.04.2026, the State submitted a Draft SOP after consultation with various stakeholders, which was acceptable to both the petitioner and the Amicus. In its order dated 30.04.2026, the Court accommodated the State's willingness to accept further suggestions and directed finalisation of the SOP.

“….The acceptance and implementation of an executive order, legislation, or a judicial direction rests on the implementing agency. Very often the Courts do intervene in passing orders and directions that address common problems being faced by the citizenry, however, the effectiveness of implementation of such directions are dependent upon how the agencies perceive such directions… The way out would be for the Court to involve the Executive in designing an Executive direction keeping in mind the objective with which the Court had intended to pass such directions.”

The Court observed that while it could have converted the draft SOP into judicial directions, “the effectiveness of a response formalised by the State and being notified appeared to be a desirable course of action”. Upon the court's direction, the State readily accepted notifying the SOP.

By order dated 03.07.2026, the Court recorded the submission of the Additional Advocate General that the SOP would be gazetted by the next date. On 31.07.2026, the State reported the gazetting of the SOP.

“…In light of the same, the matter does not call for further adjudication and is accordingly disposed of….”, the court noted while disposing of the plea.

The SOP would be applicable to the entire state, and covers early identification and timely response to pregnancies occurring when a person is below 18 years.

SOP GUIDLEINES

The SOP mandates adherence to the principles of the JJ Act, 2015, including provision of healthcare and services to be prioritized, age-appropriate information about rights and legal options, with interpreters for children with disabilities, informed consent — from the child if above 12 years, and from the guardian if under 12 years, and keeping the best interest of the pregnant child as primary consideration.

The SOP expressly clarifies: “….If the pregnancy is under 24 weeks, no CWC or Court order is required for the termination of pregnancy. Permission of the police to proceed with the termination is not required either….”

The SOP directs police to facilitate emergency medical care and medical examination within 24 hours, and inform the child and parent/guardian of entitlements. The police would be required to register a Zero FIR where jurisdiction differs, and arrange DNA kits in coordination with FSL or hospital. The police is also required to maintain chain of custody and hand over products of conception to FSL within seven days (within 24 hours if the FSL is in the same district), as well as seek permission for DNA testing within two months if the foetus is born alive. Crucially, the SOP states that once a child is adopted, no request for collection of DNA samples shall be made.

Similarly, RMPs are directed to provide immediate medical assistance, and obtain informed consent in vernacular language from the victims. Children should not be denied health services by compelling her to lodge an FIR, the SOP adds. Complete medico-legal examination must be carried out within 24 hours using the SAFE kit.

The SOP incorporates the Supreme Court's ruling in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT (W.P. No. 4126 of 2025), holding that an RMP, on request of the minor and guardian, need not disclose the minor's identity in the Section 19(1) POCSO information, and is exempt from disclosing identity in any criminal proceedings.

The SOP clarifies that CWCs are not authorized to pass orders permitting termination of pregnancy. It directs CWCs to record the child's intent in writing, facilitate termination within one week for pregnancies under 20 weeks and within two days for pregnancies above 20 weeks following Medical Board or court opinion, and recognize a guardian where parents are unavailable, unfit, or their views conflict with the child's.

With respect to Medical Board the court directed them to not form legal opinions vis-a-vis the satisfaction of the conditions under the MTP Act and "instead provide medical opinion" as to the risk involved to the physical and mental health of the pregnant person if pregnancy continues.

This opinion should consider the distress and trauma caused by pregnancies, particularly arising from pregnancies outside marriage, sexual assault and incest. It should note any health risks, including future child bearing capacity, involved for the pregnant person if the MTP is conducted.

On the other hand, the KSLSA is required to assign at least five lawyers each in Bengaluru, Dharwad, and Kalaburagi to move petitions before the respective benches of the High Court, on behalf of minors seeking termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks.

The Department of School Education and Literacy and the DSERT are directed to develop modules on comprehensive sexuality education starting from the age of 5 years, with different curricula for different age groups. The Department of Health is directed to publish the list of Medical Boards and their contact details, appoint dedicated nodal officers in district hospitals, and organize training programs for doctors, medical staff, ASHA workers, and Anganwadi workers.

A State-level Committee chaired by the Principal Secretary, Department of Women and Child Development, will develop an Annual Action Plan, commission independent compliance audits, and review the SOP annually. At the district level, the District-level Child Protection Coordination Committee (DCPC), chaired by the Principal District & Sessions Judge (in-charge of the Special POCSO Court), will address bottlenecks in monthly meetings. A dashboard will be created to monitor timelines.

A s a grievance redressal mechanism, District Magistrates are empowered to act on grievances against CWCs, Police, Medical Boards, or any person assigned under the SOP, in respect of delays or irregularities in facilitation of termination of pregnancies, the SOP says.

While closing the matter, the court also recorded its appreciation for the assistance and efforts of Prathima Honnapura, Additional Advocate General, Hemakumar, Additional Government Advocate, Swagatha Raha, Amicus Curiae, Rithika Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, after the court noted that no further orders were necessary in light of the notified SOP by the state.