No Forced Abortion Even in Rape Cases; SOP for High Court Referral Inapplicable If Victim Refuses Consent: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“No direction can be issued for medical termination of pregnancy to the victim where the victim does not give consent for the same, therefore, the SOP laid down by the Division Bench are not required to be carried out.” In a latest judgement the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) clarifying the scope of judicial intervention in reproductive rights, has categorically held that the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) mandating the referral of rape victims with pregnancies exceeding 24 weeks to the High Court is wholly inapplicable if the victim refuses consent. The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi ruled that the State or the Court cannot interfere with the personal choice of a pregnant person to continue her pregnancy, even if the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault. The ruling reinforces the supremacy of Section 3(4)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, over procedural guidelines.

“The right of every woman to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State is central to the idea of human dignity.”—Supreme Court affirms reproductive autonomy (Relied upon by the High Court)

At the heart of the dispute in this case was a Reference (PUD) received from the 21st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Indore. The lower court sought guidance on a procedural legal conundrum: A previous Division Bench order (in WP No. 5184/2025) had established a strict SOP requiring that any rape victim with a pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks must be forwarded to the District Court, then a Medical Board, and finally to the High Court for permission to terminate. However, in the instant case, the prosecutrix (victim) explicitly refused to undergo a medical examination or terminate the pregnancy. The trial court was thus paralyzed, unsure whether to force the procedural compliance of the SOP against the victim's will.

The dispute arose from a letter dated 17.11.2025 sent by the Special Judge, Indore. The court noted that the prosecutrix was pregnant for more than 24 weeks. While the SOP mandated an immediate referral to the High Court to expedite a potential termination, the victim exercised her agency and refused the medical examination required for such a referral.

Consequently, the High Court treated the letter as a Suo Motu Writ Petition to settle the position of law regarding the conflict between the SOP and the victim's refusal.

Whether the guidelines laid down in the SOP by the Division Bench at Jabalpur have to be carried out even in the case where the prosecutrix (or guardians in case of a minor) are not willing to terminate the pregnancy?

The Court categorically held that the right to make reproductive choices is an intrinsic facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. and the recent ruling in A (mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Bench observed that the consent of the pregnant person is paramount.

The Court analyzed Section 3(4)(b) of the MTP Act, 1971, which explicitly states that "no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman." The Bench noted that even in cases involving minors, where guardian consent is technically required under Section 3(4)(a), the Supreme Court has clarified that the opinion of the minor must be considered, and if the minor and parents desire to take the pregnancy to term, the State cannot interfere.

The Bench clarified the procedural aspect, holding that the SOP created in Reference v. State of MP (WP No. 5184/2025) was designed to facilitate victims seeking termination beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks. It was not a tool to compel termination.

The Court observed that the SOP's requirement to forward the victim to the Medical Board and subsequently to the High Court is triggered only when there is a prayer or intent for termination. The Bench held: "No direction can be issued for medical termination of pregnancy to the victim where the victim does not give consent for the same." Consequently, the mandatory referral procedures become redundant and need not be carried out when the victim chooses to continue the pregnancy.

The judgment distinguishes the application of the SOP laid down in WP No. 5184/2025. It clarifies that the SOP is an enabling mechanism for victims seeking relief, not a mandatory procedure to be imposed upon unwilling victims. The Court effectively held that forcing a victim to undergo medical examination for the purpose of a termination she does not want would violate her bodily autonomy.

The judgment:

Confirms that no pregnancy can be terminated without the express consent of the pregnant woman, regardless of the stage of pregnancy or the nature of conception (rape).

Clarifies that the SOP mandating High Court referral for pregnancies >24 weeks is not required if the victim refuses consent.

Reaffirms that the right to carry a pregnancy to term is part of the fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Article 21.

Disposed of the Reference by instructing the trial court that the victim cannot be compelled to undergo medical examination for termination.

Date of Decision: 27/11/2025