Karnataka HC Permits 25-Week Pregnancy Termination for Minor Rape Survivor

In a decisive intervention for reproductive rights and victim welfare, the High Court of Karnataka has permitted a 15-year-old sexual assault survivor to undergo medical termination of her 25-week pregnancy after a medical board confirmed the procedure was safe for the minor mother.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum adjudicated the petition filed by the minor's mother, seeking a mandamus to permit the termination of a pregnancy resulting from an alleged sexual assault. The case brought to the forefront the delicate balance between statutory limits on abortion and the constitutional rights of a minor victim under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Judicial Reliance on Expert Medical Opinion

The Court placed significant weight on the findings of a specialized medical board from BIMS Hospital, Ballari. Despite the pregnancy having advanced to 25 weeks beyond the routine statutory ceiling the medical experts unequivocally stated that the procedure was viable and safe. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "When such a clear and categorical medical opinion is placed on record, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot disregard the expert medical assessment... the paramount consideration must be the safety and survival of the victim."

Recognizing the trauma involved, the Court noted that at 25 weeks, the procedure essentially amounts to a preterm delivery. However, given the victim's age and the circumstances of the conception, the Court found no justification to deny the relief, provided appropriate medical safeguards were maintained.

Guidelines for Victim Support and Post-Procedure Care

Beyond the medical procedure, the Court issued a comprehensive set of directions to ensure the minor's rehabilitation and the preservation of evidence for criminal proceedings. The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The respondent-Hospital shall ensure that the victim receives continuous medical supervision and appropriate antenatal care until delivery.

(ii) The respondent–hospital shall take all necessary precautions to ensure safe delivery and neonatal care.

(iii) The Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit shall extend counselling, psychological assistance rehabilitation support to the victim;

(iv) The State shall ensure that the victim is extended the benefit of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme and other welfare measures available under law.

(v) If the victim or her guardians express inability or unwillingness to raise the child after birth, the Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for care and adoption of the child.

(vi) The respondent-hospital shall preserve relevant medical evidence, if required, for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.

(vii) Learned AGA is directed to forthwith communicate this order orally to the concerned respondents."

Background:

The dispute arose when the petitioners approached the High Court seeking urgent relief after the minor daughter, a student, was found to be pregnant following an alleged sexual assault. The case attracted the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petitioners sought termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which was later amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021.

During the proceedings, the Court examined precedents like X v. Union of India, where the Apex Court allowed termination beyond statutory limits when the woman's life was endangered. It also distinguished the present facts from X v. State (NCT of Delhi), where a different approach was taken due to different gestational circumstances. Ultimately, the Court held that since the Medical Board opined the procedure was safe and viable even at 25 weeks, the minor's health and psychological well-being necessitated the allowance of the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP No. 104962 of 2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:KHC-D:7990
Case Title: SMT. MANJAMMA W/O. GOUDAPPA & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRI. R.A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent(s): SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 199