Disposed

Ms X v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2025WP/15395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A 16-year-old rape victim sought permission for termination of her over-24-week pregnancy along with DNA preservation, expenses and compensation. The court permitted termination at Vani Vilas Hospital, directed the foetus be preserved for DNA testing in Crime No.79/2025, awarded Rs.3 lakh under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 and Rs.50,000 towards medical expenses, and disposed of t

What did the court decide?

Permission for medical termination of pregnancy at Vani Vilas Hospital; foetus preserved for DNA testing; Rs.3 lakh compensation under Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011; Rs.50,000 medical exp

Ms X Vs State of Karnataka — Medical Negligence | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 15395 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MS X

¶11

NAME OF THE PETITIONER HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED.

¶12

THE PETITIONER IS A MINOR AND A VICTIM OF SEXUAL OFFENCE. HENCE, NON-DISCLOSURE OF HER NAME IS IN COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTIONS PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P NO. 6763 OF 2020 AND OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN NIPUN SAXENA VS. UNION OF INDIA (2019) 2 SCC 703

¶13

Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. GOWRI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, C/O KUMAR RESIDING AT NO. 34/B, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, K.P AGRAHARA, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 023

¶15

… PETITIONER

¶16

(BY MS. SHILPA PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA PS, VIJAYANAGAR SUB STATION, BANGALORE CITY - 560 040.

¶22

DISTRICT LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, BENGALURU AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶23

VANI VILAS HOSPITAL, VICTORIA HOSPITAL COMPOUND, FORT, K. R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SURGEON

¶24

CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE, BANGALORE HOMBEGOWDA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 029. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRPERSON

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

DISTRICT CHILDREN PROTECTION UNIT DHARAMARAM COLLEGE POST, BESIDE KIDVAY HOSPITAL, WELFARE DEPARTMENT COMPLEX, DR. MH MARIGOWDA ROAD, HOSUR RD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA- 560 029. REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION OFFICER.

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA)

¶30

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF THE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER; (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 TO PRESERVE THE TERMINATED FOETUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DNA TESTING AND ANALYSIS; (C) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONDUCT DNA TEST OF THE TERMINATED FOETUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.79/2025 REGISTERED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 I.E., KEMPAPURA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY; (D) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.1 TO MEET THE ENTIRE EXPENSE OF THE PETITIONER TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES, COUNSELLING AND OTHER TREATMENT SHE MIGHT HAVE TO UNDERGO; (E) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.3 TO DISBURSE A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/(RUPEES THREE LAKH ONLY) TOWARDS COMPENSATION AS PER THE "COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR WOMEN VICTIMS/ SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT/OTHER".

¶31

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

The present petition has been filed seeking for the following reliefs:-

¶38

"(a) Issue a writ of mandamus and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to take necessary steps to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner's daughter;

¶39

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.4 to preserve the terminated foetus for the purpose of DNA testing and analysis;

¶40

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to conduct DNA Test of the terminated foetus for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.79/2025 registered before Respondent No.2 i.e., Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru City;

¶41

(d) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to meet the entire expense of the Petitioner towards medical expenses, counselling and other treatment she might have to undergo;

¶42

(e) Issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to disburse a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only) towards compensation as per the "Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/survivors of Sexual Assault/other.

¶43

(f) Grant such or other releifs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

The brief facts are that the petitioner who is the victim of sexual offence is represented by her mother and is aged about 16 years and was pursuing 10^th Standard

¶48

when the incident of sexual incident had occurred.

¶49

It is made out from the averments in the petition that the petitioner when subjected to medical examination, it was revealed that as on 23.05.2025, she had conceived and was pregnant of 24 weeks and 04 days. It is submitted that the petitioner who is a minor has a right to chose to continue with her pregnancy or to abort.

¶50

It is further asserted that forcing a woman to bear a child born out of the sexual assault causes undue hardship and also threat to the health of the petitioner and accordingly, the above extracted reliefs are sought for.

¶51

This Court in an identical circumstance, in the case of MISS. A vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - W.P.NO.112958/2019 (GM-RES) decided on 26.08.2019 had permitted abortion.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The decision affording permission for medical termination of pregnancy was preceded by a discussion in paras- 5 to 11 of the order dated 26.08.2019, which are extracted hereinbelow:-

¶56

"5. The question to be determined in the present petition is as to whether medical termination of pregnancy could be permitted at this stage. Section 3 (1) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act deals with termination of pregnancy and Section 3(2)(b) provides that a decision can be taken on the basis of an opinion that ‘continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical and mental health.’ Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) provides that where pregnancy is alleged to have been caused consequent to the offence of rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to mental health of the pregnant woman. The Court is required to take note of Explanation I to Section 3(2) in its letter and spirit while arriving at a decision providing for termination of pregnancy. Section 3(3) of the Act also provides that in determining as to whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-Section

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

(2), account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonable foreseeable environment. Section 3(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act when referring to reasonable foreseeable environment places greater emphasis on the aspect of mental health of the petitioner as compared to petitioner’s physical health.

¶60

6. It is to be noted that Section 5 of the Act is an exception to Section 3(2) relating to the length of pregnancy and as regards opinion of not less than 2 registered medical practitioners. It is provided that this exception would be applicable where the registered medical practitioner “… is of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.”

¶61

7. The Bombay High Court in the case of XYJ Vs. Union of India reported in MANU/MH/0565/2019 taking note of the expounding of “life” within the meaning in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has sought to assign a liberal construction to the expression ‘life of the pregnant woman’ in Section 5 while holding that despite the length of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks, permission could be granted. The Court has opined that Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) could be read into Section 5 and be construed to be ‘necessary to save

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

the life of the pregnant woman’ while permitting termination of pregnancy.

¶65

8. The Court has held that where there is threat to the life of the pregnant mother and it is found to be immediately necessary to save the life of the mother, the registered practitioner can go ahead with the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy.

¶66

However, to prevent the abuse of the liberal construction to Section 5, the Court at paragraph 11 has held that permission of the Court would be required where “continuance of pregnancy would involve a grave injury to her physical or mental health and/or that there is substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.”

¶67

9. As regards the present factual scenario, the legitimate desire of the minor petitioner to assert her right to live with dignity without ignomity and social stigma would mandate that she be permitted to terminate her pregnancy.

¶68

10. In light of the trauma that the petitioner has been subjected to, taking note of Explanation 1 to Section 3(2) of the Act and also the ‘reasonable foreseeable environment’ in Section 3(3), it could be stated that the present circumstances of the

¶69

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

petitioner make out a case that termination of pregnancy is ‘necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman’ as contemplated under Section 5 and accordingly, termination of pregnancy ought to be permitted.

¶72

11. Though the said termination not being a necessity, warranting action by the medical practitioner to immediate action, but nevertheless the request needs to be considered in the best interests of the petitioner taking note of the law laid down by the Bombay High Court referred supra which is endorsed. However, the petitioner would be required to obtain necessary permission from this Court."

¶73

Taking note of the above facts in the context in which the petitioner was forced into pregnancy, it would be appropriate to have her pregnancy terminated.

¶74

The petitioner is currently under examination before the Vani Vilas Hospital (Bangalore Medical College & Research Institute), K.R. Market Road, Bangalore, it would

¶75

be appropriate for termination of pregnancy by the Doctors of Vani Vilas Hospital, BMCRI, Bangalore. The

¶76

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

procedure is to be done under the supervision of the Doctors who submitted the Medical Report. The termination of pregnancy would be under the overall supervision of the Medical Superintendent.

¶79

It is directed that the procedure of medical

¶80

termination of pregnancy of the petitioner to be carried out forthwith to ensure that there would not be any further complications, as there has been substantial delay already. In the event, if the circumstances so arises for Doctors to obtain any orders from the Court, they are at liberty to seek for appropriate directions.

¶81

It is also observed that during the pregnancy, if the petitioner gives birth to a child, further necessary directions may be sought from this Court.

¶82

It is made clear that in light of the proceedings pending in Crime No.79/2025 before the Kempapura Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, the foetus for the

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

purpose of DNA Test and for investigation and trial is to be preserved as per the existing protocols.

¶87

The Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru is directed to release a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs (rupees three lakhs only) under the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 in favour of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶88

The respondent No.6 - District Children

¶89

Protection Unit, Bengaluru is directed to release a sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) forthwith towards the medical expenses and care of the petitioner.

¶90

The Court appreciates the assistance of Mr.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for effective intervention and co-ordination with the Departments concerned.

¶91

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:19295 WP No. 15395 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Needless to state that necessary Affidavit of the mother of petitioner and consent of the petitioner in accordance with the established procedure to be taken by the Doctors before taking up the procedure of medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner.

¶94

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.

¶95

Copy of this order is to be furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for further communication to the Authorities concerned.

¶96

Sd/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶97

VGR

Ms X v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms X v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vivek M B Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Mythreyi Developers Vs Surekha Haran

Mr Mohammed Ibrahim Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Gangaparameshwari Multi Purpose Vs the State of Karnataka

Gangarajula Venugopal Vs M/S Karur Vysya Bank Ltd.

Shivaganga Besthara Meenugarara Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha Vs the State of Karnataka