Medical terminations beyond 24 weeks are permissible only under specific conditions, which were unmet in this case, as per the Medical Board's assessment and statutory provisions.

ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 28.08.2025, the Medical Board examined the pregnancy, however, opined that the termination of pregnancy was not medically advised.

2. A copy of the report dated 29.08.2025 as shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the present writ petition may be disposed of in light of the directions given by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/2025 ( X Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. ) vide order dated 07.01.2025.

4. In case of X Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under :-

"1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner (a minor) through her mother seeking medical termination of pregnancy, seeking following relief(s):

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and; 1. The direction may kindly be passed to the respondents to terminate the prenancy of the victim Miss “S” D/o Sanjay Kumar in relation/continuation of the FIR No.746/2024 P.S. Hanumangarh Junction, Hanumangarh. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to keep the DNA of the fetus preserved in relation to the charges of rape upon the accused. 3. That any other appropriate relief, which this Hon’ble Court High Court deems just and proper may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioners.”

2. It is averred by the counsel for petitioner that Petitioner is a rape victim and she does not wish to continue the pregnancy. He also submits that the mother of the petitioner also does not want her daughter to continue the pregnancy.

3. On the request of the petitioner, this court vide order dated 06.01.2025 gave following directions:

“...5. The respondent No. 3-The Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Hanumangarh, is directed to depute an expert Sonologist at the said hospital to conduct sonography of the petitioner today itself. The petitioner along with her mother, is directed to remain present before the concerned doctor for conducting sonography. The concerned doctor shall conduct sonography to ascertain the gestation age of the foetus. The respondent No.3- The Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Hanumangarh shall constitute a Medical Board of senior doctors and opine as to whether the medical termination of the pregnancy shall be safe for the minor or not. 6. It is further directed that the sonography report as well as the opinion of the Medical Board be placed before this Court tomorrow i.e. on 07.01.2025. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned AAG, is directed to ensure compliance of this order...”

4. Upon the directions of this Court, the Medical Board was constituted on 06.01.2025 and has rendered its opinion in the following terms:

“Opinion:- The victim is pregnant with single live viable foetus of gestational age of 30 weeks & weight = 1.5Kg. The foetus had attained the age of viability(28 weeks) and is capable of independent existence. Termination of pregnancy will not be in favour of life of foetus and may also have adverse effect on the health of the mother. Victim is stable at present but she is suffering from Anemia(Hb 5.5), yet premature delivery of this foetus at this stage of pregnancy(30 weeks) by premature induction of labour is not medically advisable as it may have adverse effects on the life of & health of both mother & foetus. She should be admitted for Anemia correction.”

5. The medical as well as sonography reports dated 06.01.2025 produced are taken on record. The report of the medical board can