X (MINOR VICTIM)versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 37559 of 2026

X (Minor Victim)
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Ayush Mittal, Deepak Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C.

Court No. - 1
                     HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                     HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned State Law Officer.
2. On 21.09.2026, this Court passed the following order:
      “1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner
      and Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned State Law Officer for the State
      respondents.
      2. On 16.09.2026, this Court had passed the following order:
      "1. It is a case of extreme urgency concerning 13 year old girl as the
      gestation period of 24 weeks for the medical termination of pregnancy
      has already expired. A medical board as per Section 3(2B) of the
      Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, was constituted under the
      order of the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act),
      Prayagraj directing for a report to be submitted by 14.09.2026, but till
      date no report has been submitted.
      2. Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj is directed to submit a report as
      contemplated under the order dated 11.09.2026 passed by Additional
      Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Act, Prayagraj within next 48
      hours before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. Thereafter, Chief
      Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj shall proceed to pass an order as per the
      report regarding the feasibility of the medical termination of pregnancy
      in view of the relevant provisions contained under the Act, 1971 in light
      of judgment of Supreme Court in the cases of X vs. Principal Secretary
      Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and
                                                   WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                          2

another, (2023) 9 SCC 433 and X vs. Union of India and another, 2023
SCC Online SC 1338 and shall pass appropriate order without fail and
report be submitted before us by the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Prayagraj, on or before the next date fixed.
3. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to appear before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Prayagraj on 18.09.2026.
4. Put up this case as fresh on 21.09.2026.
5. Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned State Law Officer is directed to intimate
this order to the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj, today itself and shall
also intimate the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.
6. The Registrar (Compliance) of the High Court shall also intimate this
order to the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj today itself and shall also
intimate the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj.
7. Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also
supply his cell phone number alongwith the cell phone of the mother of
the victim to Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned State Law Officer today itself.
“
3. In compliance with the aforesaid order, learned State Law Officer has
produced before this Court a report dated 18.09.2026 submitted by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj. The same is taken on record.
4. We have perused the said report. The Medical Board has not rendered
any categorical opinion either in favour of or against the termination of
pregnancy. It has recorded that the foetus has crossed the stage of
viability and that, since the pregnancy is a high-risk pregnancy, both its
continuation and termination carry associated medical risks. This Court
is, therefore, required to take a view upon an overall consideration of
the circumstances, including the tender age of the minor and the fact that
the pregnancy is alleged to be the consequence of a sexual assault.
5. The report records the gestational age as approximately 29 weeks and
2 days. The minor is stated to be of average build, with a BMI of 16.2,
and mildly anaemic. Though her age is stated to be about 13 years as
per her Aadhaar Card, the radiological examination conducted on
24.08.2026 indicates her age to be about 16 years but below 17 years.
As regards her mental condition, the report records that the minor
appeared to understand the nature and consequences of the termination
                                                          WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                                 3

      of pregnancy. She has expressed her desire not to continue the
      pregnancy and stated that its continuation would cause further harm to
      her mental health.
      6. The reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, dignity and mental health
      of the pregnant person constitute relevant considerations under the
      Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The expression ?mental
      health? has been accorded an extensive meaning by the Supreme Court
      in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department,
      Government of NCT of Delhi and another, reported in (2023) 9 SCC
      433.
      7. Having regard to the minor?s age, the circumstances in which the
      pregnancy occurred, her physical and psychological condition, and the
      unequivocal wishes expressed by her and her natural guardians, this
      Court is of the considered view that her welfare would be served by
      permitting the termination of pregnancy.
      8. Accordingly, respondent no. 3, the Chief Medical Superintendent,
      S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, is directed to admit the
      minor petitioner and undertake the termination of pregnancy tomorrow
      on 22.09.2026 by the safest medically permissible procedure, after
      completing the requisite formalities and ensuring all necessary medical
      safeguards. The procedure shall be performed by an appropriate team of
      specialist doctors.
      9. The Investigating Officer concerned shall accompany the minor
      petitioner and assist her in the admission to the S.R.N. Hospital,
      Prayagraj. The State shall bear all expenses relating to her
      transportation, treatment and post-procedural care.
      10. The Respondent no. 3 shall submit a compliance report, which shall
      be filed and placed on record before this Court by the next date fixed.
      11. List this matter on 29.09.2026.
      12. Learned State Law Officer shall intimate this order to respondent no.
      3/Chief Medical Superintendent, S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj, the
      Investigating Officer as well as the Chief Medical Officer, Prayagraj,
      today itself.”
3. Today at 10:00 A.M., an urgent miscellaneous application had been
moved stating that the order of this Court directing medical termination of
                                                      WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                               4

pregnancy had not been complied with. Accordingly, we directed the
Head of the Department of Gynecology, Motilal Nehru Medical College
and Associated Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj, and also the
Medical Superintendent of the Hospital to appear before the Court to
explain as to under what circumstances the order dated 21.09.2026 was
not complied with fixing the matter at 2:00 P.M.
4. Now, at 2:00 P.M., we are informed that Dr. Amrita Chaurasia is
currently out of station and the In-charge Head of Department, Dr.
Vandana Ojha, is present before this Court along with Dr. Aiman Abbasi,
Assistant Professor of the Medical College, who had performed the
surgery. The Medical Superintendent, Dr. Neelam Singh, as well as the
Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Kumar Tiwari, are also present before
this Court.
5. Dr. Vandana Ojha makes a statement before this Court that she is
currently In-charge on account of the fact that Dr. Amrita Chaurasia,
Head of the Department of Gynecology, is out of station and states that
the induction process for medical termination of pregnancy through
vaginal passage was started in the evening of 22.09.2026, but, it having
failed, it was decided to perform delivery through surgery and,
accordingly, cesarean delivery of the baby was done. Looking to the
condition of the infant baby, the baby has been admitted to the Children
Hospital.
6. Dr. Aiman Abbasi, who is present before this Court and has performed
the surgery, upon being questioned as to why she performed the surgery
when medical termination of pregnancy as such was directed by the
Court, makes a statement that since medical termination of pregnancy
through the conventional method could not take place due to certain
complications, it was decided to deliver the child through cesarean mode.
Dr. Aiman Abbasi, however, could not disclose under whose order or
authorization she performed the surgery. Dr. Vandana Ojha also does not
state that she directed that the baby be delivered through cesarean mode.
7. The Chief Medical Officer, who is present before this Court, states that
he had constituted a committee under Dr. Neelam Singh, the Medical
Superintendent, to ensure that the order of this Court dated 21.09.2026 is
complied with in its letter and spirit. Dr. Neelam Singh also makes a
statement that she had communicated the order to Dr. Amrita Chaurasia at
                                                       WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                               5

11:30 A.M. yesterday and that it was now the duty of Dr. Amrita
Chaurasia to have constituted a team to ensure compliance with the order
of this Court. She further admits that Dr. Amrita Chaurasia left the station
at 12:00 A.M. midnight hours.
8. Learned State Law Officer, at this stage, makes a statement that she had
communicated the order on the day it was uploaded, i.e., on 21.09.2026,
to the Chief Medical Officer and she further submits that she received a
call from Dr. Amrita Chaurasia this morning after this Court had passed
order for her appearance in person, informing her that she had left
yesterday night itself to conduct examination at Patna and that was why
she could not comply with the order of this Court, nor could, therefore,
appeared before this Court.
9. Further, we may also here refer to the averments made in paragraph 3
of the application on behalf of the petitioner, which was supported by the
affidavit of the mother that reads as under;

     "3. That in gross violation and defiance of the explicit direction
     that "The State shall bear all expenses relating to minor victim
     transportation, treatment and post-procedural care," the
     administration/staff of S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj, has been
     arbitrarily demanding money and out-of-pocket expenses from
     the impoverished mother of the minor victim for medicines, tests,
     and procedural requirements prior to and for the execution of the
     termination procedure."

10. These above averments relate to the statement of fact which needs to
be explained and further required to be duly verified after getting the
version of the other side also. However, since Dr. M.N. Abbasi could not
disclose as to why the cesarean delivery took place and why in the
morning no effort was made, today itself we inquired as to when the
victim got admitted to the hospital. She stated that the victim came along
with the Investigating Officer at 04:45 P.M., when the registration slip.
This shows that virtually there was no attempt at all since the morning of
22.09.2026, even though the stand taken by the petitioner is that she
accompanied the Investigating Officer and reached the hospital at around
11:00 A.M.
11. In view of the statements so made by the learned State Law Officer,
                                                       WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                               6

Ms. Shruti Malviya, and also the doctors present before this Court, Dr.
Priyank Chaurasia and team of doctors involved, are prima facie found to
be guilty of deliberate negligence in not complying with the order of this
Court. It is a fit case where appropriate proceedings may be directed to be
drawn against all of them for having played with the life of a rape victim
whose application was for medical termination of pregnancy. No
explanation has been offered as to under what circumstances the induction
method failed and what is very surprising is that Dr. Amrita Chaurasia,
without giving any explanation, left for outstation. Dr. Aiman Abbasi,
who conducted the surgery, has also not disclosed as to who issued the
direction to get the cesarean delivery done. Both the victim and the
mother had clearly given consent that, at their own risk, the medical
termination be done and they did not want the baby to be born.
12. Let there be an inquiry into the matter to fix the responsibility of the
doctors including Dr. Amrita Chaurasia, who happens to be Head of the
Department of Gynecology, Motilal Nehru Medical College, and who had
the primary duty to ensure that the order of the High Court stands
complied with in its letter and spirit.
13. Accordingly, the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, is directed to hold an inquiry, himself into
the matter and submit a report within next two weeks. The report be
submitted in a sealed cover after examining the doctors who are involved
in the matter and also the victim 'x' and her mother as well as the I.O.
whom the petitioner accompanied to the hospital, on the next date fixed.
14. In the meanwhile, we direct that the Hospital shall take full care of the
mother, and she shall be discharged only after full recovery. As far as the
cesarean-born child is concerned, the infant shall be taken care of in the
Children Hospital itself and shall not be handed over to anyone without
leave of this Court.
15. We make it clear that the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the
process of delivery of the child, as well as the post-natal care of the baby
and the mother, shall be borne by the Hospital itself. The CMO shall
ensure that no expenses are charged from the petitioners including
medicines.
16. Put up this matter on 12.10.2026.
17. Let this order be communicated to the Principal Secretary, Medical,
                                                                                         WRIC No. 37559 of 2026
                                                                  7

                                    Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
                                    today itself by Registrar (Compliance). Learned State Law Officer shall
                                    also communicate this order to the authorities concerned to ensure
                                    compliance with the order of this Court.
                                    18. Let reply be filed by learned counsel for the State to the application
                                    filed today by petitioner.
                                    19. The Medical Superintendent of the Hospital as well as the Chief
                                    Medical Officer, who are present in Court, shall remain present on the
                                    next date fixed. Dr. Priyank Chaurasia shall also remain present in Court
                                    on the next date fixed, however, Dr. Vandana Ojha and Dr. Aiman Abbasi
                                    are not required to appear. I.O. shall of course, remain present in the
                                    Court on the next date fixed.


                                                                      (Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Sachin Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
SACHIN MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad