The Madhya Pradesh High Court has sought an explanation from Civil Surgeon, Assistant Chief Superintendent of a Hospital in Madla district as to why medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) cases are being referred to court where the foetus is less than 24 weeks—when the MTP Act provides that two medical practitioners can carry out procedure with the consent of the victim or her guardian. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 254]

Justice Vishal Mishra noted that several cases were being filed seeking permission for termination of pregnancy, where the foetus is less than 24 weeks, when the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act clearly provides that two registered medical practitioners can carry out the termination where the foetus exceeds 20 weeks but is less than 24 weeks.

It thus asked the Principal Secretary of the Health Department, and Director of the Health Department to ensure that the Courts are not flooded with such kind of cases any more and appropriate directions are issued in this regard. said:

"This Court failed to understands that once there is a specific provision provided under the Act of 1971, why permission of this Court is required for terminating pregnancy. The Board can take conscious view regarding to the same and looking to the heath status and condition of the victim as well as consent, the procedure of termination could have been adopted".

The court noted that the Act allows for termination by either the consent of the victim, their guardian or by the medical practitioner and still the authorities tried to shift the burden onto one another, ultimately forwarding the matter to the court.

"This Court repeatedly coming across such matters where instead of proceeding with the termination of pregnancy, the authorities are shifting their burden to one another and thereafter the matter travelled up to this Court and after getting a direction/permission from this Court for termination of pregnancy, the procedure is being carried out.

Once the authorities themselves are competent to terminate the pregnancy in terms of provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1971, then such permissions are not required from this Court. Cases of termination of pregnancy are of urgent nature and should have been addressed by the authorities themselves to the earliest, but despite of the same, time is being wasted for taking permission from the District Court as well as from the this Court prior to adopting the procedure".

The case arose from a letter forwarded to the Registrar General by the Division Bench of this court in a suo moto petition wherein a 17-year-old girl was raped and later found pregnant. The court emphasized her right to terminate the pregnancy and, therefore, on July 4, 2026, a medical board submitted its report.

The petitioner was 10 weeks pregnant, and her mother consented to the termination on July 4, 2026. Thus, the court granted permission to carry out the termination.

"The Act of 1971 clearly provides that if victim who is less than 18 years of age, gives his consent for terminating her pregnancy in writing or consent is given by the guardian, the same can be terminated. Under these circumstances, there is no requirement for taking permission from this Court for adopting the procedure, if the terms of pregnancy does not exceed 24 weeks. Under, these circumstances, let an explanation from Civil Surgeon, Assistant Chief Superintendent of Hospital, District Madla be procured to the effect as to why in such cases where the age of fetus is less then 24 weeks, permission from the Courts is required".

Further, the court directed that this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary of the Health Department, State of M.P. and the Director of the Health Department, State of M.P., to ensure courts are not flooded with such cases. The court directed the State to issue necessary directions.

The plea was disposed of.

Case Title: Prosecutrix X v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-25213-2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 254

For State: Government Advocate Ajay Ojha

Click here to read/download the Order