Jammu Kashmir High Court HC Declines 27-Week Pregnancy Termination of Minor Rape Survivor, Cites Grave Risk to Life | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has declined permission for medical termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor after observing that the Medical Board constituted in the case had “unequivocally” warned that termination at the advanced stage of gestation could pose a serious threat to her life and future reproductive health.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal passed the judgment on May 21, 2026 in WP(C) No. 1016/2026 titled Minor Victim “X” through her natural guardian/father versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others.

The matter had been reserved on May 18 and the full judgment was pronounced and uploaded on May 21.

Advocate Asifa Rashid appeared for the petitioner, while government advocates Faheem Nisar Shah and Waseem Gul represented the respondents.

According to the petition, the victim, stated to be around 14 years old, had conceived as a result of sexual assault and rape. An FIR bearing No. 38/2026 had already been registered at Police Station D.H. Pora in Kulgam district and the accused had been taken into custody.

The plea sought permission for medical termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 despite the pregnancy having crossed the statutory gestational limit. It also sought constitution of a Medical Board, confidentiality protections and free medical care for the victim.

The petition stated that the pregnancy had advanced to about 25 weeks and five days at the time of filing and later reached approximately 27 weeks during the proceedings.

The Child Welfare Committee, Kulgam, had declared the victim a “Child in Need of Care and Protection” and recommended urgent legal, medical and psychological intervention.

During the proceedings, the court directed constitution of a Medical Board at Government Medical College Srinagar to assess the feasibility of termination and the risks involved. The matter was later heard in-camera in chambers in the presence of senior health officials, members of the Medical Board, counsel for the parties and the parents of the victim.

The Medical Board informed the court that termination at the advanced stage of pregnancy carried serious medical and obstetric risks, including prolonged failed induction, hysterectomy, postpartum haemorrhage, need for intensive care, multiple blood transfusions and possible secondary infertility.

Quoting the Medical Board’s findings, the court recorded:

“Keeping in view advanced gestational age, the following will be the medical/obstetric risks to the mother if pregnancy is terminated…”

The Board further warned of risks including “need for operative interventions like hysterectomy, postpartum hemorrhage, operative vaginal delivery, puerperal sepsis, need for intensive care and multiple blood transfusions and secondary infertility as a long terms sequel.”

While considering the plea, the court observed that though it was conscious of the trauma and psychological distress suffered by the victim, the “paramount consideration” before the court had to be preservation of her life.

“The constitutional guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses not merely reproductive autonomy but also the right to life and survival of the pregnant woman,” Justice Nargal observed.

The court said it could not disregard the expert opinion of the Medical Board.

“This Court cannot, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, disregard or sit in appeal over the expert medical opinion rendered by a duly constituted Medical Board, particularly when the same indicates a threat to the life of the petitioner,” the judgment said.

The court further observed that constitutional courts were not expected to substitute their own views for the opinions of medical specialists.

“Courts are not expected to substitute their own views over the opinion of specialists and super specialists who are equipped to assess the medical feasibility, safety and consequences of such procedures,” the court said.

The High Court distinguished a recent Supreme Court judgment permitting termination of a 28-week pregnancy by observing that in that case the Medical Board had found the victim medically fit for termination, whereas in the present matter the Board had categorically warned against it.

Referring to another recent Supreme Court ruling, the court noted that courts were not obliged to permit termination in every case involving unwanted pregnancy and that each case depended on its own facts and medical assessment.

“This is not to say that in every case where there is an unwanted pregnancy, this Court or the High Courts ought to exercise its jurisdiction and order for termination. It would depend on the facts of each case,” the judgment quoted from the Supreme Court decision.

Declining permission for termination, the court said:

“Where two competing interests arise, namely the psychological trauma associated with continuation of pregnancy and the imminent medical danger associated with termination, the Court is duty bound to prioritize preservation of life.”

At the same time, the court issued extensive directions for protection, rehabilitation, confidentiality and medical care of the victim and the prospective child.

The court directed Government Lalla Ded Hospital to provide all medical facilities, pre and post-delivery care, medicines, investigations and counselling free of cost. The Medical Superintendent of the hospital was designated as the nodal officer for coordinating treatment and delivery-related procedures.

The concerned Senior Superintendents of Police were directed to provide security and protection to the victim wherever required, while authorities were asked to maintain complete confidentiality regarding her identity and medical condition.

The court also directed authorities under Mission Vatsalya and the Child Welfare Committee to take steps regarding adoption-related legal formalities, if required, in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Observing that the role of the court in such matters was “not adversarial but protective in nature”, Justice Nargal said the Juvenile Justice Act provided a comprehensive statutory framework for protection and rehabilitation of children in need of care and protection, including victims of sexual assault.

“The constitutional courts are guardians of life and liberty and cannot pass orders which may potentially expose an individual to irreversible medical consequences,” the court observed.

The Medical Superintendent of Lalla Ded Hospital, the Nodal Officer of Mission Vatsalya and the SSPs of Kulgam and Srinagar were directed to file monthly compliance reports before the High Court regarding medical care, protection and welfare measures being provided to the victim and the prospective child.