Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Thursday refused to permit medical termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor from south Kashmir after a medical board warned that the procedure at the advanced stage of gestation could endanger her life and future reproductive health.
Justice W S Nargal, while deciding a petition filed on behalf of the minor victim from Kulgam district, held that courts cannot disregard expert medical opinion in matters involving serious risks to the life of the patient.
The court, however, directed authorities to ensure comprehensive medical care, rehabilitation, confidentiality and protection for the victim and the prospective child.
According to the judgment, the minor girl had conceived following alleged sexual assault, leading to registration of FIR No. 38/2026 at D.H. Pora police station in Kulgam. The accused has already been arrested and the investigation is in progress.
The petition sought permission for termination of pregnancy despite the gestational age exceeding the statutory limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave injury to the physical and mental health of the child and infringe her right to dignity and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
She informed the court that the pregnancy had advanced to around 25 weeks and five days when the petition was filed. Subsequently, a medical board constituted by the court examined the victim and assessed the risks associated with termination.
The medical board cautioned that termination at the advanced stage carried “extremely high risk of medical complications” and could pose a serious threat to the life and health of the victim. The report warned of prolonged induction, possibility of hysterectomy, postpartum haemorrhage, sepsis, need for intensive care, multiple blood transfusions and even secondary infertility.
Relying heavily on the medical opinion, the court observed that constitutional courts are not expected to substitute their own views for those of specialists in complex medical matters.
“The paramount consideration in such cases has to be the preservation of life and minimization of risk to the health of the minor,” the court observed, adding that sympathy alone cannot justify issuance of directions that may expose the victim to life-threatening complications.
The petitioner had relied on a recent Supreme Court ruling permitting termination of pregnancy at 28 weeks in another rape survivor case. However, the High Court distinguished that judgment, noting that in the earlier case the medical board had declared the victim medically fit for termination, unlike the present case.
Justice Nargal also referred to decisions of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court emphasizing that termination cannot be ordered in every case of unwanted pregnancy, and must depend on the facts and medical assessment in each matter.
While declining permission for termination, the court issued a series of directions for the welfare and rehabilitation of the victim. It directed Government Lalla Ded Hospital to provide free medical treatment, hospitalization, counselling, medicines, dietary support and delivery-related care under the supervision of a nodal officer.
The court also directed police authorities to ensure protection and maintain strict confidentiality regarding the identity and medical condition of the victim.
Further directions were issued to the Mission Vatsalya and the Child Welfare Committee for facilitating rehabilitation and handling adoption-related legal formalities, if required, in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.
The court also ordered monthly compliance reports from the concerned authorities regarding the health, care and welfare of the victim and the prospective child.
