ORDER

Sachdeva, Acting CJ. -- 1. Appellant impugns order dated 22.7.2024 whereby the prayer for termination of pregnancy has been declined on the ground that the foetus is over 28 weeks.

2. Subject petition has been filed by the grandmother of the minor girl. It is contended that the parents of the minor girl were separated from the grandmother and were living separately and the child has been brought up by the maternal grandmother from a very early age.

3. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has noticed the opinion of the Board part of which has been extracted in the order. For the sake of convenience, the part of the report is extracted herein :--

“5. Opinion by Medical Board for termination of pregnancy :

a) Allowed: -

b) Denied: Denied

The gestational age of the fetus is more than 24 weeks hence medical termination cannot be performed as per MTP act amendment 2021. In case of permission or order of MTP by honorable Court such termination can be performed with all the explained risk of anticipated and unanticipated complications related to termination of such high risk teenage pregnancy and the survivor having mild intellectual disability. Termination of pregnancy at this gestational age and continuation of pregnancy, both, carries risk of complications.

6. Physical fitness of the woman for the termination of pregnancy:

Yes”

4. Learned Single Judge referring to the medical report has held that in view of the medical report and the fact that the FIR that has been lodged by the grandmother of the girl is suspicious, no case is made out for terminating the pregnancy.

5. Insofar as the observation of the learned Single Judge with regard to the lodging of the FIR being suspicious is concerned, we find that there is no material to substantiate that observation. Accordingly, the observation in the impugned order that the lodging of the FIR by the grandmother of the petitioner is suspicious, is expunged.

6. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2024 (6) SCC 327 wherein the Supreme Court has held that opinion of the pregnant person must be given privacy in evaluating the foreseeable environment of the person under section 3 (3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Further, Supreme Court has held that the consent of a pregnant person in decision of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy paramount and in case, there is a diversion in the opinion of the pregnant person and her guardian, the opinion of the minor or mentally ill pregnant person must be taken into consideration as an important aspect in enabling the Court to arrive at a just conclusion.

7. The appeal was mentioned and listed before us on 24.7.2024 when we noticed that there was no consent of the minor as is held to be an essential condition by the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Another, 2024 (6) SCC 327.

8. Keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court in A (Mother of X) (supra), we directed the Principal District Judge, Bhopal to nominate a Lady Judicial Officer to visit the girl at the hospital and obtain her independent informed decision with regard to termination of her pregnancy. We also directed that the concerned Gynaecologists shall also accompany the Lady Officer so as to explain to the minor girl consequences about the eventualities.

9. Pursuant to the said order, the Principal District Judge nominated Ms. Palak Rai, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal to visit the girl. The Judicial Magistrate visited the girl at 8:30 in the night. She was accompanied by Dr. Smt. Shubha Shrivastava and Dr. Preksha Gupta. A report has been submitted. The report inter alia reads as under:

^^ihfM+rk okrkZyki djus esa ,o Á'u mÙkj dh ÁÑfr le>us esa l{ke Árhr gqbZ gSA esjs le{k L=h jksx fo'ks"kK MkWDVj 'kqHkk JhokLro o MkWDVj Ás{kk xqIrk ds }kjk vo;Ld ihfM+rk dks le; iwoZ xHkZ lekiu dh tfVyrk ls voxr djk;k x;kA MkWDVj Jher