Reproductive Autonomy, Dignity And Mental Health Of Child Sexual Assault Survivor Must Prevail: Karnataka High Court Clears Path For Second-Trimester Abortion

“A victim of sexual assault is entitled in law… to seek termination of pregnancy”, Karnataka High Court delivered a sensitive and rights-centric ruling in Writ Petition, affirming that a survivor of child sexual abuse cannot be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy. Justice B M Shyam Prasad, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, held that a victim of sexual assault is legally entitled to seek medical termination of pregnancy, grounded in her rights to reproductive autonomy, privacy, dignity, and mental health. The Court directed constitution of a Medical Board to immediately examine the petitioner, permitted medical termination subject to its opinion, ordered preservation of foetal material for forensic investigation, and directed payment of ₹3,00,000 compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.

Minor Survivor Approaches Court For Termination And Compensation

The writ petition was instituted by a young woman, anonymised as “Ms X”, whose identity was protected in compliance with the Supreme Court’s mandate in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 SCC 703, as she was a minor at the time of the sexual assault. The petitioner was in her second trimester of pregnancy and approached the High Court seeking urgent directions for medical termination.

The prayer before the Court included directions to Vani Vilas Women’s and Children Hospital to immediately terminate the pregnancy, preservation of the foetus/product of conception for DNA analysis, forensic testing by the State Forensic Science Laboratory in connection with FIR No. 08/2026, and disbursal of compensation under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.

It was brought to the Court’s notice that although the petitioner had recently attained majority, she was a minor at the time of the offence and, given her socio-economic circumstances, was in no position to carry the pregnancy to term or raise a child.

“Right To Reproductive Autonomy, Privacy And Dignity”: Core Legal Issue Before The Court

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether a survivor of sexual assault, who was a minor at the time of the incident and was in the second trimester of pregnancy, could seek medical termination of pregnancy through judicial intervention.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that forcing continuation of pregnancy would violate the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on a consistent line of judicial precedents recognising that reproductive choice is intrinsic to personal liberty, bodily autonomy, and mental well-being, particularly in cases of rape and child sexual abuse.

The State, through the learned Additional Government Advocate, submitted that the hospital would comply with any direction of the Court and follow the prescribed medical procedure through evaluation by a Medical Board.

“A Woman, Even A Minor, Has A Right To Make A Reproductive Choice”: Court’s Observations Anchored In Constitutional Jurisprudence

Justice B M Shyam Prasad reiterated the evolving constitutional jurisprudence recognising reproductive autonomy as a facet of Article 21. The Court referred to its own earlier decision in W.P. No. 25408 of 2025, wherein it had examined the permissibility of medical termination even beyond statutory limits, particularly in cases involving minors.

Quoting with approval, the Court recalled that the Gujarat High Court in XYZ v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 4042, had emphasised “the right of a woman [even a minor] to make a reproductive choice and the importance of mental health of the victim”. The Karnataka High Court further noted that such reasoning was firmly supported by the Supreme Court’s landmark rulings in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 9 SCC 433, and A Mother of X v. State of Maharashtra.

The Court accepted the submission that a survivor of sexual assault “is entitled in law in exercise of her right to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and dignity to seek termination of pregnancy”.

Medical Board, Forensic Safeguards And Compensation: Balancing Rights And Criminal Justice

While prioritising the petitioner’s autonomy and mental health, the Court also ensured that the interests of criminal investigation and trial were safeguarded. It directed that the foetus/product of conception be preserved strictly in accordance with existing medical and forensic protocols to facilitate DNA testing and investigation in the pending FIR.

At the same time, recognising the immediate need for rehabilitation and support, the Court directed the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to release ₹3,00,000 to the petitioner under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, upon scrutiny and receipt of the order.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court issued clear and time-bound directions. It ordered the hospital authorities to “forthwith constitute a Medical Board” to examine the petitioner and make appropriate recommendations. It further held that if the Medical Board opined in favour of termination, the hospital “shall take all measures for an early decision”. The Court emphasised that preservation of the foetus for investigative purposes was mandatory and directed immediate steps for release of compensation.

The Karnataka High Court’s decision stands as a reaffirmation that the law cannot be blind to the trauma, dignity, and autonomy of survivors of sexual violence. By harmonising reproductive rights, medical safeguards, and criminal justice requirements, the Court reinforced that compelling a survivor — particularly one who was a child at the time of assault — to continue an unwanted pregnancy would be an affront to constitutional morality and human dignity. The ruling strengthens the jurisprudence that reproductive choice is not a concession, but a right.

Date of Decision: 29 January 2026