JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.

2. The present writ application has been filed for a direction to the Respondent authorities to facilitate the medical termination of pregnancy of the minor daughter of the petitioner inasmuch as according to the petitioner, she is the victim of sexual abuse and is carrying the pregnancy of about 13 weeks.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s daughter is a minor girl aged about 16 years nine months and was kidnapped by the accused person namely, Ajay Kumar Pal and was kept under illegal confinement by the accused persons and after filing the habeas corpus petition by the petitioner being Cr.W.J.C. No. 86 of 2022, the daughter of the petitioner was recovered. Learned counsel further submits that the victim was medically examined and the Doctor has opined that victim girl is having a pregnancy of nine weeks at the time of her medical examination as on 11.3.2022.

4. Learned counsel referring to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 submits that as per Section 3(b)(i)(ii) Explanation 2, the termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is permitted inasmuch as the minor, being a rape victim, is fulfilling the conditions specified under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Suchita Srivastava and Another v. Chandigarh Administration, reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1, has held, in paragraph-22, as follows:-

“22. There is no doubt that woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as woman’s right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman’s entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. However, in the case of pregnant women there is also a “compelling State interest” in protecting the life of the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive choices”

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. He also relied upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in a case of X Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. {W.P. (CRL) 2008/2013} in which Delhi High Court, relying upon the case of Suchita Srivastava (supra), has allowed the medical termination of the petitioner by two Medical Practitioners in accordance with Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner is mother of the victim girl and as per Section 3(4)(a) of the MTP Act, 1971, she is ready and willing to give the consent in writing before the registered Medical Practitioner at the time of termination of pregnancy of the victim girl.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Behari Sinha, learned senior counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit bringing on record the report of the Medical Board of the victim girl annexed as Annexure-