Orissa High Court Allows Termination Of 13-Yr-Old Minor Rape Survivor’s Pregnancy Beyond 24-Weeks; Orders Health Dept. To Formulate SOP To Ensure Timely Process

In the Writ Petition, before the High Court, the Petitioner’s father sought a direction from the Court to the Opposite Parties for convening the Medical Board at MKCG Medical College and Hospital to assess his daughter’s condition and facilitate the termination of her pregnancy.

Directing the Department of Public Health and the Department of Medical to establish a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure, the Single Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi asserted, “The SOP should ensure a smooth and timely process for medical termination of pregnancy, removing avoidable delays and preventing the patient from facing unnecessary bureaucracy or drawn-out legal struggles.”

Advocate Arnav Behera represented the Petitioner while AGA Saswat Das represented the Opposite Party.

Factual Background

X was born in the year 2011 and is currently a 13-year-old studying in the 7th standard. She belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. She suffers from Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, both of which are specified disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. In August 2024, X was repeatedly raped by a man and due to threats from the accused, she did not disclose the assault to her parents or anyone else.

Her health deteriorated, and her mother took her to a doctor, who, upon examination, found that she was six months pregnant. The pregnancy was discovered at a late stage, beyond the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act). Thereafter, an FIR was registered under Section(s) 64(2)(m)/65(1)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. X is currently admitted and undergoing treatment for her pregnancy and disabilities. It has been advised that carrying the pregnancy to full term and giving birth would pose a serious risk to X's life due to her.

Reasoning

Referring to Section 3 of the MTP Act and the requirements provided in the X v. Union of India (2023), the Bench observed that the present case squarely fell within the ambit of permissible termination. The continuation of X’s pregnancy poses a grave risk to her life and would cause severe injury to her physical and mental health, as confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Medical Board.

It was further noticed that the pregnancy is a result of rape, which, under Explanation 1 to Section 3(2), is presumed to cause grave mental anguish to the survivor and X’s Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy increases the likelihood of substantial foetal abnormalities. “...the case before this Court is not one to be resolved with mere legal formalism or clinical detachment, for it strikes at the very heart of human dignity and demands not only the measured reasoning of the law but the moral clarity of a society unwilling to turn away from its most vulnerable”, it added.

Expressing its views on abortion, the Bench said, “The right to make decisions about one's own body is not a privilege to be granted at the state's discretion. It is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, one that no authority should presume to deny.” Reference was also made to the momentous pronouncement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2014) whereby the Supreme Court declared with unwavering clarity that the right to make reproductive choices finds firm footing within the constitutionally enshrined guarantees of life and personal liberty under Article 21

“ Forcing a thirteen-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term would place an unbearable burden on her body and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing. While termination is not without risk, it prevents the far graver consequences of childbirth and forced motherhood at an age where such responsibilities are unthinkable”, it added.

The Bench explained that the Supreme Court, in X v. Union of India (Supra), has laid down clear precepts: where the gestational period surpasses 24 weeks, the matter must be referred to the Medical Board. Emphasizing that the machinery of justice must recognize its own limits where time is of the essence, the Bench issued the following directions for the formulation and implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure concerning the medical termination of pregnancy:

• The Health and Family Welfare Department shall develop a comprehensive SOP for medical termination of pregnancy, ensuring adherence to the pre-requisites established in X v. Union of India (Supra).
• The SOP shall be drafted in consultation with medical experts specializing in obstetrics, gynaecology, and reproductive health, alongside legal professionals well-versed in medical jurisprudence.
• Upon finalization, the SOP shall be formally notified and disseminated to all Government and Private Healthcare Institutions across the State.
• The SOP should ensure a smooth and timely process for medical termination of pregnancy, removing avoidable delays and preventing the patient from facing unnecessary bureaucracy or drawn-out legal struggles
• Recognizing the emotional and psychological impact of such cases, the concerned authorities shall ensure that psychological counselling services are made available to the patient. In cases involving minors, a qualified child psychologist shall be engaged to provide appropriate support.
• The Health and Family Welfare Department shall periodically review the implementation of the SOP and take necessary corrective measures to address any procedural inefficiency

Thus, considering that the medical termination of pregnancy is not only legally permissible but also morally imperative, the Bench allowed the Writ Petition and directed the concerned authorities to ensure the procedure is carried out without further delay or obstruction.

Cause Title: X v. State of Odisha and Ors. (Case No.: W.P.(C) No.5396 of 2025)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Arnav Behera, Anikita Mukherji

Opposite Party: AGA Saswat Das

Click here to read/download Order