P. C.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. A prayer is for medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner who is 12 years and 5 months old.

3. Considering the nature of relief claimed viz. directions for medical termination of pregnancy, we have caused notice and directed the victim to appear before the Medical Board.

4. In compliance thereof, the victim has appeared before the Medical Board today. The Medical Board was consisting of Dean, Professor and HOD of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Associate Professor and HOD, Pathology; Associate Professor and HOD, Paediatrics, Professor and HOD, Chest Medicine, Professor and HOD, Psychiatry and Associate Professor, Radiodiagnosis. The opinion given by the Medical Board reads thus:

‘Key recommendations of the panel (if any) with justification

The process of termination of pregnancy is high risk by considering her age and fetal gestational age. Hysterotomy can be done with High Risk consent of parents and assent of patient.”

5. In this background, we are required to consider whether the directions as prayed for need to be issued to the respondents to permit the victim to undergo medical termination of pregnancy.

6. The offence is registered vide Crime No.283 of 2025 on 05.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(m), 65(2), 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, wherein the allegation is that the cousin uncle of the victim has committed the offence in question.

7. It appears that the report came to be lodged at a belated stage as the accused is in relation with the family members of the victim and the same has led to approaching this Court at the belated stage.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid report/opinion given by the Medical Board, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner herself is willing to undergo the medical termination of pregnancy, even if such process is at high risk. According to her, there is no life threat to the petitioner in case if she is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy. So as to substantiate her contentions, the counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and another, reported in [(2023) 9 SCC 433]. Paragraphs 114 and 116 thereof read thus:

“114. A woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. In case the pregnancy is wanted, it is equally shared by both the partners. However, in case of an unwanted or incidental pregnancy, the burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman affecting her mental and physical health. 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.

116. 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. Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to choose for oneself – be it as significant as choosing the course of one’s life or as mundane as one’s day-to day activities – forms a part of the right to dignity. It is this right which would be under attack if women were forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies.”

9. As such, according to her, since the right to carry pregnancy is by virtue of the choice of a woman like the petitioner in the present case, one cannot force to continue the pregnancy as in case if the termination is not allowed, the same is likely to affect the mental and physical health co