1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by minor victim/petitioner, who has been sexually exploited/raped by accused of Crime No. 0936/2023, registered at Police Station Baloda Distt. Baloda Bazar, through her natural guardian, seeking following relief(s):-

"i. To permit the petitioner to terminate her ongoing pregnancy through registered medical practitioners at any approved private or government center or Hospital

ii. To direct the State to inform a panel of expert doctors either at the District Hospital Baloda Bazar Distt. Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara or any Government Medical Hospital, Raipur as early as possible for termination of pregnancy of the petitioner.

iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner/victim, who is minor, was abducted by the accused of Crime No. 0936/2023, registered at Police Station Baloda Distt. Baloda Bazar, on the pretext of marriage. Subsequently FIR (Annexure-P/1) under Sections 363 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at Police Station Baloda Distt. Baloda Bazar. Thereafter the petitioner was sent for medical examination at Government Hospital, wherein she was diagnosed with single alive intrauterine fetus of 16 weeks of gestation. Since the petitioner is minor, therefore, her age does not legally permit the medical practitioner to perform termination of pregnancy due to pendency of criminal case. Since further carrying pregnancy can gravely endanger physical and mental health of the petitioner therefore, delay in termination of pregnancy may affect her life. Hence, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court by filing this writ petition, as stated herein-above, to prevent herself from severe mental agony for carrying unwanted pregnancy, to which father of the petitioner has also given consent. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Suchita Srivastava and another v. Chandigarh Administration reported in (2009) 9 SCC 1 [LQ/SC/2009/1763] and a prayer has been made to direct termination of pregnancy applying the "best interests" theory to prevent the petitioner from further mental agony which is a grave injury to her.

4. Shri Rahul Jha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that as per the direction of this Court, the petitioner was examined on 20.12.2023 by a medical team of doctors of Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Hospital & Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College, Raipur and report in this regard has been placed on record, in which, team of doctors have given positive opinion in respect of termination of pregnancy of the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the medical report filed by the respondents.

6. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 08.12.2023, this Court directed respondent No. 4/the Chief Medical Officer, Medical Board of District Hospital Baloda Bazar to submit report with regard to termination of pregnancy of the petitioner, upon which, report given by respondent No. 4 was not found to be clear on some of the points, thereafter fresh medical report was sought from Dean of Dr. BR Ambedkar Medical College, Raipur. In compliance of which, a team of doctors of Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, have examined the minor petitioner on 20.12.2023. A report (Annexure-R/2) has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State, in which, it has been reported that on 19.12.2023, Ultra Sonography of the minor petitioner was conducted and she was found to be carrying pregnancy of 14 weeks and 6 days (15 weeks). They have also reported that the petitioner is also having mild anemia with sickle cell anemia and continuation of pregnancy may be detrimental to her physical and mental health. Team of doctors of Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur have given positive opinion in respect of termination of pregnancy of the petitioner.

7. Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act of 1971) envisages the provisions for termination of pregnancy, which is reproduced hereinunder:-

"3. When Pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,-

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in good faith, that,-

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Explanation 1.-Where any, pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Explanation 2.-Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken to the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment.

(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who, having attained the age of eighteen years, is a [mentally ill person], shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian.

(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman."

8. Perusal of the aforesaid provisions show that termination of pregnancy is permissible in the given circumstances, as has been envisaged under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act. In the instant case, the petitioner is minor about 15 years of age, i.e. too young for undergoing the trauma of pregnancy. Moreover, as per the medical report submitted by a team of doctors of Dr. BR Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, the petitioner is mild anemic with sickle cell anemia, therefore, continuation of pregnancy may be detrimental to her physical and mental health.

9. In the case of Suchita Srivastava (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 36 & 37 has held as under:-

"36. Courts in other common law jurisdictions have developed two distinct standards while exercising "parens patriae" jurisdiction for the purpose of making reproductive decisions on behalf of mentally retarded persons. These two standards are the "best interests" test and the "substituted judgment" test.

37. As evident from its literal description, the "best interests" test requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. In the present setting this means that the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of the other stakeholders such as guardians or the society in general. It is evident that the woman in question will need care and assistance which will in turn entail some costs. However, that cannot be a ground for denying the exercise of reproductive rights."

10. Likewise, again in the case of "X v. Union of India & others" reported in (2016) 14 SCC 382 in paragraph No. 13 it has been held as under:-

"13. Having perused the medical report (relevant extracts whereof have been reproduced hereinabove), we are satisfied that a clear finding has been recorded by the Medical Board, that the risk to the petitioner of continuation of her pregnancy can gravely endanger her physical and mental health. The Medical Board has also expressed an advice that the patient should not continue with the pregnancy. In view of the findings recorded in Para 6 of the report, coupled with the recommendation and advice tendered by the Medical Board, we are satisfied that it is permissible to allow the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy in terms of Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. In view of the above, we grant liberty to the petitioner, if she is so advised, to terminate her pregnancy."

11. The aforesaid judgment in the case of "X v. Union of India & others" the request for termination of pregnancy was in a case where the pregnancy was of more than 20 weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in the recent past have permitted termination of pregnancy in matters, where the pregnancy was more than 20 weeks. A few judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are reported in 2017:INSC:117 : 2017 (3) SCC 458 [LQ/SC/2017/197] (X and others v. Union of India and others), 2017:INSC:52 : 2017 (3) SCC 462 [LQ/SC/2017/85] (Meera Santosh Pal and others v. Union of India and others), AIR 2017 SC 3931 [LQ/SC/2017/1152] (Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India and others) and AIR 2017 SC 4037 [LQ/SC/2017/1280] (Mrs. A v. Union of India and others). In all these cases the age of the fetus were more than 20 weeks and taking into consideration the over all condition of the victim, the Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted termination of pregnancy.

12. In the instant case, age of the victim is said to be about 15 years only and carrying pregnancy and delivering a child in such tender age, undoubtedly may cause danger to physical and mental health and her life also.

13. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and further referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "A v. Union of India" 2018 (14) SCC 75 [LQ/SC/2017/1280] and also "Sarmishtha Chakrabortty and Another v. Union of India" 2018 (13) SCC 339 [LQ/SC/2017/882] permitted termination of pregnancy at the stage where the victim was carrying pregnancy for around 26 weeks. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India and others" 2017 SCC Online 1092, considering the age of the petitioner, the trauma she has suffered because of the sexual abuse and the agony she is going through at present and above all the report of the Medical Board constituted by the Court allowed the termination of pregnancy.

14. The petitioner in the instant case is not only a minor, but she is also a victim of rape and under such sexual exploitation, she become pregnant and at present she is carrying pregnancy of 17 weeks. In such situation, the victim of rape/her parents must be given that much liberty and right to decide whether she should continue with pregnancy or she should be permitted to terminate the pregnancy and if the petitioner/her parents do not wish to continue such unwanted pregnancy and further having anemia and sickle cell anemia, continuation of pregnancy may be detrimental to the physical and mental health and life of the petitioner as has been reported in the instant case, then such termination of the pregnancy may be permitted in the interest of minor victim/petitioner.

15. For the foregoing discussion, this petition seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy of the petitioner is allowed with following directions:-

"1. The petitioner to remain present at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College, Raipur on 08.01.2024 so that termination of pregnancy can be carried out on 09.01.2024 or on the next day by a team of doctors consisting of Dean, Medical College; two senior gynecologists available in the hospital; one Radiologist; one Clinical Psychiatrist and one Anesthetist. The Dean of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College, Raipur is directed to make all such arrangements if the petitioner and her father give consent in the prescribed proforma under the Act of 1971 and the rules made thereunder.

2. The termination of pregnancy of the petitioner will be supervised by the above-stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete record of the procedure which is to be performed on the petitioner for termination of her pregnancy.

3. The District Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara shall ensure safe journey of the petitioner along with her parents from Baloda Bazar to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur on 08.01.2024 and all necessary expenses will be borne by the State in this regard.

4. On being informed, the District Collector, Raipur shall make necessary arrangements for journey of the petitioner and her parents from Raipur to Baloda Bazar after her discharge.

5. The petitioner will be allowed all medical and requisite facilities till she is medically fit even after the termination of pregnancy."

16. A copy of this order be sent to the Dean, Medical College, Raipur, Collector, Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara and Collector, Raipur directly through fax and e-mail by today itself and through Shri Rahul Jha, Govt. Advocate, today itself so that he or she can make arrangements for termination of pregnancy of the petitioner well in advance.

17. No order as to cost(s).

18. Certified copy today to the parties.