-
by sayum
22 December 2025 10:01 AM
Orissa High Court, in a deeply compassionate and legally progressive judgment in X v. State of Odisha & Others, allowed a 13-year-old tribal rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy beyond the 24-week statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
Justice Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, while delivering the verdict, asserted that the pregnancy was not only legally terminable but morally imperative to end, considering the victim’s physical vulnerability and psychological trauma. The Court made a compelling declaration: “The law is not meant to stand in the way of dignity and justice, but to uphold them. Time is not a passive measure but an active force—and each moment lost bears its own weight in consequence.”
“When the Body Is a Battlefield, Choice Must Belong to the Survivor—Right to Abortion Is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21”
The minor victim, a tribal girl diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, had become pregnant after being repeatedly raped by a man in her village. Medical reports confirmed the pregnancy was over 24 weeks when discovered. Upon the Court's order, a Medical Board opined that the continuation of pregnancy posed a grave risk to her life and mental health.
Accepting the report, the Court held: “The right to make decisions about one’s own body is a fundamental facet of the right to life and liberty. The Constitution does not condone enforced suffering in the name of legal formalism.”
“The Law Already Speaks in Her Favour—Doctors Should Not Be Made to Fear Courts More Than Complications”
The Court was deeply critical of the bureaucratic delay and the unnecessary insistence on court orders despite legal clarity in Section 3(2B) of the MTP Act. Quoting authoritative precedent, it warned: “A fear of social backlash, not legal ambiguity, makes healthcare providers risk-averse. The result is unnecessary trauma inflicted upon those who are already victims of heinous crimes.”
The judge emphasized that once the Medical Board certifies the need, judicial oversight should be redundant unless there is ambiguity or conflict.
“Constitutional Dignity Must Prevail Over Statutory Rigidity—Medical Relief Cannot Be Caged in Procedural Delay”
Drawing from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India and the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in X v. Union of India (2023), the Court reaffirmed that reproductive autonomy is inseparable from constitutional liberty.
Justice Panigrahi made a profound observation: “The dignity of a child must not be sacrificed at the altar of delay. When the law permits, the court must not become the only door—it must ensure that the door is already open.”
“Systemic Delay Is a Structural Violence—Court Mandates SOP to End Judicial Dependency for Every Abortion Beyond 24 Weeks”
Moving beyond individual relief, the Court passed mandatory directions to the State Government to formulate a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to streamline late-term abortion access in Odisha, especially for survivors of rape or minors.
Justice Panigrahi stated: “Medical professionals must be empowered to act within law, not forced to rely on judicial cover. Courts are meant to intervene in exceptions, not in every instance where the law already provides for relief.”
The SOP is to be framed in consultation with medical, legal and child protection experts to ensure timely intervention, counseling, and reporting—without redundant court intervention.
This ruling is not just about a 13-year-old child—it is about restoring constitutional primacy to reproductive autonomy, ensuring that law does not become a second trauma for those already subjected to violence. The Court’s message is loud and clear: where the law enables, the system must not obstruct.
In the Court’s own unforgettable words: “She was failed once when she was raped—she must not be failed again by the legal system.”
Date of Decision: 3 March 2025
