Disposed

Ms X v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2026WP/7773/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking medical termination for a minor sexual assault survivor at 28 weeks, the High Court of Karnataka refused the prayer despite noting the POCSO context. The court relied on a Medical Board opinion stating termination would endanger the mother's life and upheld safety as paramount, directing the hospital to ensure safe

What did the court decide?

Petition for medical termination dismissed; directions issued for continuous medical supervision, safe delivery, counseling, compensation, and potential adoption proceedings.

Ms X Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 7773 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MS X REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMT. NEELAMMA AGED MAJOR W/O NAGAPPA R/AT AJJAVARA, CHIKKABALLAPUR KARNATAKA-562 101.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. VARSHITHA .K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 THROUGH CHIKKABALLAPUR WOMEN POLICE STATION HAVING ADDRESS AT MG ROAD, CHIKKABALALPUR KARNATAKA-562 101.

¶14

DISTRICT HOSPITAL CHIKKABALLAPUR HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT APMC ROAD, NH 206 CHIKKABALLAPUR KARNATAKA-562 101.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

REP.BY DR. M. MANJULA PH. 9845382470 08156272388 EMAIL: [email protected]

¶18

CHIKKABALLAPUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND TEACHING HOSPITAL HAVING ITS ADDRESS AT DISTRICT HOSPITAL CAMPUS MARALUSIDDESWARA TEMPLE AROOR

¶19

KARNATAKA-562 104.

¶20

DISTRICT CHILD PROTECTION UNIT WELFARE DEPARTMENT COMPLEX BEHIND KIDWAI HOSPITAL DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶21

CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE BEHIND KIDWAI HOSPITAL DR M H MARIGOWDA ROAD HOSUR ROAD

¶22

BENGALURU-560 029.

¶23

KARNATAKA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R6; SMT. SUMANA BALIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR DIRECTION TO THE R2 TO IMMEDIATELY ADMIT THE PETITIONER AT R2 HOSPITAL AND TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO MEDICALLY TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY FORTHWITH AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The present writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of the victim, who is a minor and whose pregnancy is alleged to be the consequence of sexual assault attracting the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

¶33

Considering the urgency involved and the sensitive nature of the matter, this Court by order dated 06.03.2026 directed respondent No.3–Hospital to constitute a Medical Board comprising specialists in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Paediatrics and other relevant disciplines to examine the victim and submit a report regarding:

¶34

(i) the gestational age of the foetus;

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(ii) whether termination of pregnancy could be

¶39

safely undertaken; and

¶40

(iii) the risks, if any, to the life and health of the victim.

¶41

Pursuant to the directions issued by this

¶42

Court, the Medical Board examined the victim and submitted its report dated 07.03.2026. The Medical Board has opined that the pregnancy has reached approximately 28 weeks of gestation, which is well beyond the stage of foetal viability. The Board has further opined that induction for termination at this stage would pose serious risk to the life of the mother and the baby, and therefore termination is not medically advisable.

¶43

The law relating to termination of pregnancy in India is governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the Medical

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021 (for short "the Act").

¶47

Under Section 3 of the Act, pregnancy may

¶48

ordinarily be terminated up to 20 weeks on the opinion of one registered medical practitioner and up to 24 weeks on the opinion of two registered medical practitioners for certain categories of women, which include survivors of sexual assault and minors.

¶49

Section 5 of the Act provides an exception permitting termination beyond the prescribed limit only when such termination is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

¶50

In cases where pregnancy has crossed the statutory limit, constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, have entertained petitions seeking termination, primarily based on medical

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

opinion regarding risk to the life or health of the pregnant woman or severe foetal abnormalities.

¶55

In X v. Union of India (2024) 12 SCC

¶56

453 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts may

¶57

permit termination beyond the statutory limit where continuation of pregnancy would endanger the life of the woman and the medical report does not disclose any substantial foetal abnormalities.

¶58

9. In X v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2506, the Division bench of Delhi High court overturned a single judge’s order allowing a 16year-old survivor of sexual assault to terminate her 26-week pregnancy, and directed her to continue the same till 34 weeks.

¶59

However, the consistent thread running

¶60

through the aforesaid decisions is that Courts have relied upon the opinion of competent Medical Boards

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

while deciding whether termination can be safely undertaken. Where the Medical Board has opined that termination would pose serious risk to the life of the pregnant woman, Courts have refrained from

¶64

permitting such termination.

¶65

In the present case, the pregnancy has advanced to 28 weeks, which is well beyond the stage of foetal viability. At this stage, the foetus is capable of survival outside the womb with appropriate neonatal care.

¶66

The Medical Board constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court has categorically opined that induction for termination at this stage would be dangerous to the life of the mother as well as the baby. The same is extracted which reads as under:

¶67

"Opinion: As baby has crossed the period of viability, induction for termination at this period of gestation is endangerous to the life of mother and baby and hence

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

referring to honour'ble court to take necessary decision for the same."

¶71

In the present case, this Court has carefully

¶72

examined the report and opinion furnished by the duly constituted Medical Board. The Board, after conducting a detailed medical examination of the victim and assessing the stage of pregnancy, has unequivocally opined that termination of pregnancy at the present stage would pose serious medical risks and would be medically unsafe. The expert opinion indicates that the procedure may endanger the life and health of the minor and therefore cannot be safely undertaken. When such a clear and categorical medical opinion is placed on record, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot disregard the expert medical assessment. In the absence of any material indicating that termination can be safely performed, this Court

¶73

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

finds no justification to issue a direction for medical termination of pregnancy.

¶77

Though this Court is deeply conscious of the traumatic circumstances in which the victim has conceived, particularly in view of the alleged sexual assault attracting the provisions of the POCSO Act, the paramount consideration must be the safety and survival of the victim.

¶78

In view of the advanced gestational age of 28 weeks, the pregnancy has crossed the stage where termination could be medically treated as an abortion procedure. At this stage, medical intervention would essentially amount to preterm delivery, which, as per the Medical Board, carries serious risk to both the mother and the baby.

¶79

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Therefore, this Court finds no justification to issue directions permitting termination of pregnancy contrary to the medical opinion placed on record.

¶82

Having regard to the peculiar facts of the

¶83

case and the status of the victim as a minor survivor of sexual assault, the following directions are issued:

¶84

(i) The respondent–Hospital shall ensure that the victim receives continuous medical supervision and appropriate antenatal care until delivery.

¶85

(ii) The respondent–hospital shall take all necessary precautions to ensure safe delivery and neonatal care.

¶86

(iii) The Child Welfare Committee and District Child Protection Unit shall extend

¶87

11 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:14412 WP No. 7773 of 2026

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

counselling, psychological assistance and

¶91

rehabilitation support to the victim.

¶92

(iv) The State shall ensure that the victim is extended the benefit of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme and other welfare measures available under law.

¶93

(v) If the victim or her guardians express inability or unwillingness to raise the child after birth, the Child Welfare Committee shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law for care and adoption of the child.

¶94

(vi) The respondent–hospital shall preserve

¶95

relevant medical evidence, if required, for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.

¶96