Woman's Consent Is Paramount In MTP Cases, Cannot Be Usurped Even By Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2025-08-25

Latest Legal Developments.

Woman’s Consent is Paramount for Abortion, Cannot Be Overridden: Madhya Pradesh High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction

JABALPUR, MADHYA PRADESH – In a significant ruling reinforcing a woman's reproductive autonomy, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Vishal Mishra, has held that the consent of a pregnant person is paramount and indispensable for the termination of a pregnancy. The Court clarified that no order for termination can be passed in the absence of such consent, even in cases involving minor survivors of sexual assault.

The judgment also addressed the "casual manner" in which lower courts refer cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, to the High Court, providing clear jurisdictional guidelines to prevent unnecessary delays and procedural errors.

Case Background

The High Court took suo moto cognizance of a matter referred by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan. The case involved a 17-year-old rape survivor who was found to be 28 weeks pregnant. A medical board confirmed the gestational age and noted that the fetus had crossed the age of viability.

Crucially, both the minor survivor and her mother explicitly refused to give consent for the termination of the pregnancy. The trial court's records also indicated that the survivor had married the accused and wished for his release. Despite the clear lack of consent, the Sessions Judge referred the case to the High Court for a decision on termination.

Court’s Firm Stance on Consent and Autonomy

Justice Mishra firmly reiterated the settled legal position that the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy belongs solely to the pregnant individual. The court's decision was anchored in landmark Supreme Court precedents and the explicit text of the MTP Act.

The judgment heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. , which established that the right to make reproductive choices is an integral facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court quoted the precedent, emphasizing:

"The choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone... no entity, even if it is the State, can speak on behalf of a pregnant person and usurp her consent."

The Court also pointed to Section 3(4)(b) of the MTP Act, which unequivocally states, "...no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman." Given the explicit refusal of consent in the present case, the High Court concluded that there was "no occasion" for the Sessions Judge to have referred the matter for a termination order.

Clarification on Jurisdictional Boundaries

Expressing concern over the frequent and often unnecessary referrals from lower courts, Justice Mishra provided a clear directive on jurisdiction for MTP cases:

• Up to 24 Weeks: Trial/Sessions Courts are fully competent to pass orders regarding pregnancy termination for survivors of sexual assault, provided the gestational age is within 24 weeks and the requisite medical opinions and consent are in place. These cases should not be referred to the High Court.
• Beyond 24 Weeks: Only when the pregnancy of a survivor exceeds 24 weeks and termination is sought, is permission from the High Court required under its writ jurisdiction (Article 226 of the Constitution).

The Court highlighted the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) laid down by a Division Bench in a previous case ( WP No. 5184 of 2025 ), which must be followed meticulously.

Deficiencies in Medical Reports Flagged

The Court also took the opportunity to critique the quality of reports submitted by medical boards, noting they often lack the specific details required by law. Justice Mishra directed that future reports must provide clear and cogent opinions on: 1. Whether the opinion is formed in "good faith." 2. If continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to the woman's life or grave injury to her physical or mental health. 3. Whether there is a substantial risk of the child being born with serious physical or mental abnormalities.

Final Decision and Directives

The High Court disposed of the petition, making it clear that no termination could be ordered against the survivor's will.

To ensure widespread compliance and prevent future errors, the Registrar General was directed to circulate a copy of the order to all Principal District & Sessions Judges in the state and to the State Medical Board, instructing them to adhere to the legal principles and procedures outlined in the judgment.