Orissa High Court Permits Termination of 13-Year-Old Rape Survivor’s Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks

Law is Not Meant to Stand in the Way of Dignity and Justice but to Uphold Them - Orissa High Court allowed the medical termination of a 13-year-old rape survivor’s pregnancy beyond the statutory 24-week limit. The Court, emphasizing the fundamental right to bodily autonomy, directed that the medical termination of pregnancy be carried out immediately.

The case concerned a 13-year-old minor girl belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, who was repeatedly raped by an individual named Dinesh Pradhan in August 2024. Due to threats from the accused, she remained silent. Her pregnancy was only discovered after six months, by which time it had progressed beyond the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Upon medical examination, she was diagnosed with Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy, both of which are recognized disabilities under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Doctors warned that continuing the pregnancy posed a life-threatening risk due to her age, medical conditions, and the physical and psychological trauma of sexual violence.

On February 11, 2025, the girl’s mother filed an FIR at G. Udaygiri Police Station, Kandhamal, under Sections 64(2)(m), 65(1), and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Following the filing of the writ petition, the Court directed the Medical Board at MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur to assess the minor’s condition and submit a detailed report. The Medical Board, in its report, unanimously concluded that continuation of the pregnancy posed grave risks to her life and mental well-being.

The Court, while analyzing the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, referred to Section 3(2)(b)(i), which permits abortion beyond 12 weeks and up to 20 weeks, if two registered medical practitioners opine that continuation of the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman’s life or would cause grave injury to her physical or mental health.

Under Explanation 1 to Section 3(2), pregnancies resulting from rape are presumed to cause grave mental anguish, thereby meeting the criteria for termination. Further, Section 3(2B) allows termination beyond 24 weeks in cases of substantial fetal abnormalities with approval from a Medical Board.

The Court also relied on Section 5 of the MTP Act, which permits termination at any stage of pregnancy if necessary to save the life of the woman.

Referring to X v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1338), the Court noted that the Supreme Court had previously upheld the right of rape survivors to terminate pregnancies beyond 24 weeks when medical opinion supported the necessity of such termination. It also referred to ABC v. State of Chhattisgarh (WP(C) No. 3105 of 2022), where the Chhattisgarh High Court permitted termination of a 28-week pregnancy in a 14-year-old rape survivor suffering from Sickle Cell Anaemia.

Right to Bodily Autonomy and Personal Liberty  

The Court emphasized that bodily autonomy and reproductive rights are fundamental to the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Citing K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), it reiterated that the right to make reproductive choices is an essential aspect of individual dignity and privacy.

“The right to make decisions about one’s own body is not a privilege to be granted at the state’s discretion. It is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, one that no authority should presume to deny.”

Referring to international jurisprudence, the Court highlighted the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v. Morgentaler (1988), which decriminalized abortion by recognizing bodily autonomy as an inalienable right.

“A society that views abortion solely through the lens of regulation fails to grasp its deeper significance. It is, above all, a matter of individual conscience and personal liberty.”

Judicial Delay and the Need for Institutional Reforms
The Court expressed concern over the unnecessary judicial intervention required in cases where the law already provides a clear course of action. The delay of more than two weeks in obtaining a court order, despite medical opinion confirming the need for termination, was unwarranted.

“Time is not a passive measure but an active force, and each moment lost bears its own weight in consequence.”

The Court also criticized healthcare providers' reluctance to perform medical terminations without judicial authorization, despite the clear legal mandate under the MTP Act. It cited research by NLSIU, Bengaluru, which documented instances where doctors, fearing legal repercussions, refused abortions unless a court order was obtained.

“The fear of backlash must not be allowed to dictate the course of medical care. It is not enough to offer assurances; what is required is a deliberate and unwavering commitment to legal clarity and institutional confidence.”

In addition to granting permission for immediate medical termination of pregnancy, the Court issued specific directions to the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha, for the formulation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to prevent unnecessary delays in similar cases.

The Court directed that:

•    A comprehensive SOP be developed in consultation with medical and legal experts.
•    All government and private healthcare institutions be notified and trained on the SOP.
•    The referral process to Medical Boards be streamlined to avoid unnecessary judicial intervention.
•    Psychological counselling services be made available for rape survivors, particularly minors.
•    The Police Department be sensitized to immediately provide legal assistance to rape survivors facing unwanted pregnancies.
The Court mandated that the SOP must be finalized within six months and periodically reviewed for efficacy and compliance.

Allowing the medical termination of pregnancy, the Court observed: “The law is not meant to stand in the way of dignity and justice but to uphold them.”

It reiterated that forcing a 13-year-old rape survivor to carry a pregnancy to term would be “an unbearable burden on her body and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing.” The Court thus directed that the procedure be carried out without further delay or obstruction.

By delivering this judgment, the Orissa High Court upheld the fundamental rights of a minor rape survivor, ensuring that medical necessity and individual dignity take precedence over bureaucratic and procedural hurdles.

Date of Decision: March 3, 2025