Dignity Over Gestation: Karnataka HC Permits Termination of 27-Week Pregnancy for Minor Victim

Prioritizing the physical and mental well-being of a sexual assault survivor, the Karnataka High Court has cleared the path for a 17-year-old girl to terminate her 27-week pregnancy, ruling that the medical fitness of the victim and her status as a minor outweigh the statutory gestation limits. The decision underscores a compassionate judicial approach toward POCSO victims, ensuring that the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy does not become a life-long burden forced upon a minor.

Justice M.G.S. Kamal, presiding over the matter, heard the petition filed by the mother of the minor victim. The Court noted that the girl, an assault survivor, was discovered to be pregnant during a medical check-up for irregular cycles, leading to the registration of a criminal case under the POCSO Act, 2012 and the BNS Act, 2023. Given the advanced stage of pregnancy, the Court sought a medical evaluation to determine the feasibility of the procedure.

Key Takeaways

Priority to Victim's Mental Health

Legal thresholds for abortion are flexible when the mental and physical health of a minor victim of sexual assault is at stake.

Medical Board’s Discretionary Power

Doctors retain full clinical autonomy to halt a court-ordered termination if unforeseen medical risks emerge during the procedure.

State Liability for Victim Support

The State is mandated to bear all medical and logistics costs for terminations involving minor victims and must facilitate statutory compensation.

Evidence Preservation Mandate

In cases arising from sexual offences, the preservation of the fetus for DNA profiling is a non-negotiable legal requirement for criminal trial integrity.

Judicial Evaluation of Medical Fitness

The Bench examined a report from a Medical Board comprising a gynecologist, pediatrician, radiologist, and anesthetist, which declared the minor medically fit for the procedure. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Since the medical report does not indicate any concern and has unequivocally opined that petitioner No.2 is medically fit to undergo the procedure and also considering the fact that petitioner No.2 is just 17 years of age, victim of the alleged offence noted above, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the petition."

Addressing the specific requirements for the process, the Court issued the following directions:

" (i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 shall carry out the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner No.2 following the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 1971 forthwith.

(iii) It is made clear, notwithstanding the aforesaid opinion issued by the Medical Board, if in the event of the team encountering any medical concern during the procedure, they are at liberty to take such decision as may be necessary in the interest of the minor petitioner No.2, including not to go ahead with the procedure. Thus, it is absolutely within the discretion of the Medical Board to take decision as required.

(iv) If in the event of procedure being carried out, the concerned respondent shall preserve the fetus for the purpose of DNA test that may be required for the purpose of impending investigation, enquiry and trial to be conducted for the offence which is registered in the case noted above.

(v) The said fetus shall be sent for DNA analysis within the time and in the manner prescribed under the law regarding its preservation and obtain the report and submit it to the Jurisdictional Court through the concerned Investigating Officer for further action.

(vi) If in the event of petitioner No.2 in the process giving birth to the baby, the concerned hospital shall ensure such baby is given all medical care and aid as per the protocol.

(vii) Child born, if any, shall be at the discretion of petitioner No.2 and her minor guardian, be either handed over to them or to the State Agency as per the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and a report in this regard shall be filed to the concerned Board.

(viii) All expenses including conveyance, pre-care and the post-care facilities shall be borne and paid by the State."

Ratio

The High Court held that the constitutional right to reproductive choice and the physical/mental health of a minor victim take precedence over the statutory gestation period under the MTP Act 1971 when supported by a positive medical evaluation. The Court affirmed that in cases of sexual assault involving minors, the judiciary must exercise its parens patriae jurisdiction to prevent further trauma, provided the termination does not pose a life-threatening risk to the victim.

Background

The case reached the High Court after a 17-year-old girl, represented by her mother, sought permission for Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) at 27 weeks. The pregnancy was the result of an alleged sexual assault, for which a case was registered under the POCSO Act, 2012. The Child Welfare Committee had previously forwarded the request to the Mother Child Hospital (MCH), Hosapete, but the medical authorities required a court order due to the pregnancy exceeding the standard legal limit.

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Meera Santosh Pal vs. Union of India ( "2017 (3) SCC 462": 2017 CaseBase(SC) 831) and other similar rulings by Co-ordinate Benches of the High Court to grant the relief. The Court also ensured that the victim remains eligible for compensation under the relevant Government Order dated 25.09.2018.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP No. 108191 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:16134
Case Title: Smt. Padma N and Anr. vs. The State of Karnataka and Others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Raghavendra A Purohit, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Sri. Prashanth V. Mogali, HCGP for R1 & R4

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 22238