The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that it was not required for the Second Additional Sessions Judge to have referred the matter to the High Court for passing an order with respect to the termination of pregnancy when the 17-year-old rape survivor did not give her consent for termination. The High Court also asked the Medical Board to provide complete, cogent and clear opinions with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971.

The High Court took note of the Trial Court’s order sheet reflecting the fact that the prosecutrix had solemnised marriage with the accused, and she wanted the accused to be released from jail.

The Single Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra held, “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.”

Government Advocate Alok Agnihotri represented the State.

Factual Background

The prosecutrix, a minor aged around 17 years, alleged that she was sexually assaulted and raped by the accused, against whom an FIR was registered under the provisions of the BNS and the POCSO Act. During the medical examination, the victim was found to be pregnant.

Reasoning

The Bench found that even though consent had not been given by the prosecutrix as well as her mother regarding the termination of pregnancy, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan referred the matter to the High Court. “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”, the Bench stated.

Considering that the age of the fetus exceeded 24 weeks, the Bench held that the SOPs in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of In reference (suo moto) vs State of M.P. (2025) be followed in the instant case. Referring to the observations of the Division Bench, the Bench asserted, “In view whereof, if the pregnancy does not exceed 24 weeks, learned trial Courts/Sessions Courts are having jurisdiction to pass orders with respect to termination of pregnancy in terms of Section 3 of the MTP Act based upon the consent of the guardian or the pregnant woman, as the case may be, taking into consideration the opinion given by a registered medical practitioner where the length of the pregnancy is upto 20 weeks and in case it exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, by two registered medical practitioners. Such cases are not required to be referred to this Court for termination of pregnancy.”

The Bench was of the view that the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount.Reference was made to clause (4)(b) of Section 3 of the MTP Act, which provides for that "... no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman".”

As per the Bench, there was no occasion for the Second Additional Sessions Judge to have referred the matter to the High Court. Highlighting the fact that in cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), the references are made to the High Court in a casual manner, the Bench held that the SOPs enumerated in In Reference (Supra) must be followed in such cases.

Disposing of the Petition and asking the Registrar General to circulate the copy of the order to all the Principal District & Sessions Judges of the State and the State Medical Board for doing the needful, the Bench held, “...the Medical Board duly constituted in terms of Section 3 of the MTP Act is directed to provide complete, cogent and clear opinions with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of finally.”

Cause Title: Prosecutrix X v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025:MPHC-JBP:40423)

Click here to read/download Order


Madhya Pradesh High CourtJustice Vishal Mishra

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.