Bombay High Court Permits Abortion for 12-Year-Old Assault Victim, Prioritising Her Autonomy Over Medical Risks

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has directed the Government Medical College at Akola to immediately facilitate the medical termination of pregnancy for a 12-and-a-half-year-old girl who became pregnant after being sexually assaulted by a relative. Despite the Medical Board flagging the procedure as high-risk given her age and the foetus’s gestational age of 28–29 weeks, the Court held that her constitutional right to bodily autonomy must prevail.

A Family Member’s Betrayal and a Belated Complaint

The minor petitioner, appearing through her father, approached the Court after FIR No. 283 of 2025 was registered on 5 June 2025 at a police station in Maharashtra. The complaint alleged offences under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 65(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita along with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The accused is the victim’s cousin uncle, and the family’s initial reluctance to report the crime because of the relationship contributed to the delay.

By the time the writ petition reached the Court, the pregnancy had progressed to a stage where any termination would require a hysterotomy. Yet both the 12-year-old victim and her parents expressed a clear and unequivocal desire to proceed.

Divergent Views on Risk and Rights

The petitioner’s counsel relied heavily on recent Supreme Court pronouncements affirming a woman’s exclusive right over her body. She argued that forcing continuation of an unwanted pregnancy would inflict lasting mental and physical trauma. The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader, countered that the Medical Board’s opinion described the procedure as “high risk” and therefore urged judicial caution.

The Court, however, noted that the same Board had not declared that the minor’s life was in danger; it had merely recommended proceeding with high-risk consent from the parents and assent from the patient. The Government Pleader assured the Bench that all necessary safety protocols would be followed.

Judicial Reasoning: Autonomy Cannot Be Sacrificed

The Bench comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Sachin S. Deshmukh concluded that the State cannot compel a minor survivor of sexual violence to carry the pregnancy to term when she and her guardians have consciously opted for termination. The Court stressed that safety protocols, including the inclusion of a paediatric surgeon, gynaecology surgeon and, if possible, a paediatric anaesthesiologist, would adequately address the medical concerns.

Pivotal Observations by the Court

“Article 21 of the Constitution recognises and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake. Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decision-maker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion.”

“If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their pregnancies to term, the State would be stripping them of the right to determine the immediate and long-term path their lives would take.”

“In case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman/victim.”

“We deem it appropriate to direct the Dean, Government Medical College, Akola to permit the petitioner to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at the earliest by taking recourse to the safety protocol…”

The Court also recorded the parents’ willingness to furnish a high-risk undertaking and directed that the minor’s assent be placed on the medical record.

What the Ruling Means Going Forward

By allowing the petition, the Nagpur Bench has reinforced that constitutional courts will not mechanically defer to medical risk assessments when the fundamental choice of a sexual-assault survivor—particularly a minor—is at stake. The decision underscores that medical teams must now organise multidisciplinary protocols swiftly once a court green-lights termination in such sensitive cases. The ruling is expected to guide similar petitions across High Courts where late-stage pregnancies of minor victims raise comparable medical and constitutional questions.