MP High Court denies abortion plea of 31-week pregnant minor:Fetus found healthy and alive; state ordered to ensure medical care

A 16-year-old rape survivor in Madhya Pradesh has been denied permission to terminate her 31-week pregnancy after the High Court ruled that ending the pregnancy at such an advanced stage would effectively amount to ending a viable life. The court also noted that medical experts had warned of serious risks to the teenager’s own life if the pregnancy was terminated. State ordered to provide full support Rejecting the petition, the vacation bench of Justice Vivek Jain directed the State Government to ensure comprehensive medical treatment, safe delivery arrangements and post-birth care for both the survivor and the child. The court further instructed authorities to provide continuous monitoring and necessary healthcare support until childbirth. Allegations of rape on promise of marriage The case relates to Ghughri police station limits in Mandla district. According to allegations, a young man from Behra village repeatedly raped the 16-year-old girl from 15 October 2025 after allegedly promising to marry her. The assaults resulted in pregnancy. Since the pregnancy had crossed the legal 24-week limit for routine medical termination, the matter reached the High Court for consideration. Medical panel flags serious health concerns A specialist medical board from Mandla District Hospital informed the court that the teenager was 31 weeks pregnant and suffering from severe anaemia. Key findings of the medical report included: • Haemoglobin level of only 7.5 grams
• Pregnancy advanced to 31 weeks
• Foetus found alive and medically healthy
• Termination could pose a grave threat to the girl’s life Supreme Court ruling cited During the hearing, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in X versus Union of India. It observed that pregnancies beyond 24 weeks can be terminated only under exceptional circumstances, such as a serious threat to the mother’s life or the presence of incurable foetal abnormalities. The court found neither condition applicable in the present case. Future care and adoption option The court clarified that the State Government would remain responsible for the child’s protection, care and rehabilitation after birth. Important directions include: • Continued hospital-based care for the survivor
• State-backed support for the newborn
• Rehabilitation measures after delivery
• Legal option of adoption if the family chooses not to raise the child The court said the survivor or her family may approach it again to seek appropriate legal guidance regarding adoption procedures after the child’s birth.