Rape survivors do not require court nod to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks: MP HC
Rape survivors, whose pregnancies are up to 24 weeks old, do not require court approval to seek a legal termination, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has said, citing a judicial precedent.
Justice Sandeep N Bhatt of the Indore bench made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the father of a 16-year-old rape survivor and directed the Commissioner of the State Health Department to disseminate the division bench's order to all concerned hospitals, especially those run by the government, so that they can take care of such situations in the future.
The minor had approached the court seeking authorisation to terminate an 18-week pregnancy resulting from sexual assault, citing severe mental trauma. The single-judge bench issued the order on Tuesday. The high court cited a February 20, 2025, judgment by the HC's Jabalpur bench which had clarified that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, survivors of sexual assault, rape, or incest do not need to institute court proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution to undergo an abortion.
Talking to media, the petitioner's lawyer, Ashish Choubey, said the minor rape victim had filed a petition in the high court through her father seeking appropriate directions for legal termination of the unwanted pregnancy.
He said that the girl does not want to continue the pregnancy resulting from the rape, as she was under immense mental distress.
The high court had said in the 2025 judgment that in case of survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, the pregnancy up to 20 weeks may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner and where the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, by two registered medical practitioners in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and rules framed thereunder without taking resort to judicial proceedings before the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The HC had said, "It is also relevant to mention herein that Rule 6 (3) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020 also enjoins upon the medical practitioner, hospital or other medical facility centre rendering emergency medical care to a child not to demand any legal or magisterial requisition or other documentation as a prerequisite to rendering such care."
