Case Background
The petitioner is a 16-year-old rape survivor from Mubarakpur village in Samastipur district. She lives with her mother, brother and sister. Her father works in Hyderabad as a daily wage labourer.
For several months, the petitioner was allegedly sexually abused and raped by a man named in the FIR. Over time, she started feeling unwell, with problems such as vomiting and stomachache. When her father came home to the village, the family noticed that her behaviour and physical condition were not normal.
On being questioned, the girl disclosed that she had been repeatedly raped by the accused person. The family used a pregnancy test kit at home, which showed that she was pregnant. The father went to the accused’s house on 25.02.2022 to inquire. The accused allegedly told him he would arrange for the girl’s abortion.
On 03.03.2022, the girl lodged an FIR at Mahila Police Station, Samastipur, registered as Women PS Case No. 13/2022. The case was under Sections 376, 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). Her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was recorded on 05.03.2022.
On 04.04.2022, around one month after the FIR, an application under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) was filed before the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Court (POCSO), Samastipur. The request was to medically terminate the pregnancy.
The Special Court directed the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Samastipur, to act in the best interest of the victim. The CWC then asked the Medical Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, to constitute a Medical Board and submit a report.
The Medical Board’s report, forwarded through CWC letter No. 182/22 dated 11.04.2022, stated that the foetus was 26 weeks and 2 days old. The Board opined that termination at that stage could cause antepartum or postpartum haemorrhage to both the victim and the foetus. Acting on this opinion, the Special Court rejected the application for termination by order dated 12.04.2022.
Thereafter, on 20.04.2022, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Patna High Court seeking permission for medical termination of the unwanted pregnancy. The Registry was directed to register and list the matter expeditiously. On 25.04.2022, on an urgent motion, the writ was ordered to be listed on priority and was placed before the Court on 27.04.2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
When the writ petition came up on 27.04.2022, the Patna High Court heard the lawyers for the petitioner and for the State. Considering the sensitive nature of the case and the advanced stage of pregnancy, the Court decided that a more detailed and specialised medical assessment was required.
The Court therefore directed that a seven-member Medical Board be constituted at AIIMS, Patna, to examine the petitioner and the foetus. The Board was to be headed by the Director, AIIMS, Patna and include senior specialists in obstetrics and gynaecology, psychiatry, paediatrics, and heads of gynaecology from major government hospitals in Patna.
The Board was requested to examine the minor petitioner and submit its report in a sealed cover to the Court on or before 05.05.2022. On 05.05.2022, at the request of both sides, the Court handed over the Board’s opinion to the petitioner’s counsel. The writ petition was finally heard on 12.05.2022.
The Medical Board conducted a detailed physical, obstetric and mental health evaluation of the petitioner. They recorded that her general condition was fair, she was conscious and oriented, and her vital signs were stable, with mild pallor. Systemic examinations of her respiratory, circulatory, neurological and gastrointestinal systems were normal.
On abdominal examination, the uterus was enlarged, corresponding to 30–32 weeks of pregnancy, and foetal heart sounds were heard. Obstetric consultants noted that she was a 16-year-old pregnant adolescent with a high-risk pregnancy because of her age, and mild nutritional anaemia.
The first day of her last menstrual period could not be recalled. On ultrasound, there was a single live intrauterine foetus of 30 weeks and 4 days with cephalic presentation and an estimated weight of 1546 grams.
The psychiatry team conducted a mental health evaluation. They found no gross abnormalities or psychopathology indicating any significant mental illness at that time. However, they emphasised the need for supportive counselling and appropriate psychosocial interventions to reduce the psychological impact of the trauma.
In conclusion, the Board described her as a 16-year-old girl with 32 weeks’ pregnancy, high-risk due to teenage status, with nutritional anaemia, and a foetus in good condition. The Board clearly stated that termination was not medically indicated at this stage of gestation. They warned that the foetus was alive and would be live-born if delivered, but with complications of prematurity. They recommended iron and calcium supplements.
After the Board’s report, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that, in light of this professional opinion, the petitioner was not pressing the prayer for termination. Thus, the core request for abortion was effectively given up because medical experts found it unsafe and not indicated at 32 weeks.
However, the petitioner’s lawyer raised a serious concern about procedural lapses by the police. He submitted that when the FIR was lodged on 03.03.2022 and the unwanted pregnancy was disclosed, the police did not inform the Child Welfare Committee, Samastipur, as required under Section 31(i) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).
He pointed out that the JJ Act places a statutory duty on the police and other authorities to produce any child in need of care and protection before the CWC. A similar duty is contained in Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act, which requires the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police to report the matter within 24 hours to the CWC and the Special Court (or Sessions Court where no Special Court is notified), including the child’s need for care and protection and steps taken.
According to the petitioner, if the police had properly and promptly informed the CWC about the unwanted pregnancy, timely steps could have been taken, possibly avoiding the trauma and mental agony of having to carry an unwanted pregnancy to 32 weeks and give birth to a child conceived from rape.
Given that termination was no longer being sought, the petitioner’s counsel made alternative submissions. He requested:
(a) that the delivery of the child should be under the supervision of expert doctors;
(b) that proper post-delivery care should be provided to both the newborn and the mother;
(c) that some financial assistance, in addition to what is available under the Victim Compensation Scheme, should be granted; and
(d) that counselling should be provided, and that the petitioner should not be forced to keep the child if she and her family are unable or unwilling to do so.
The Court also called Mr. Naushad Raza, Chairman of the Child Welfare Committee, and Ms. Amrita Pritam, Additional Director, Child Protection Unit, Samastipur, to be present. During the hearing, they informed the Court about the State’s child care framework.
They stated that from birth up to six years of age, which can be extended to eight years, the baby would be kept in an Adoption Centre run by the State Government in collaboration with an NGO. After that, the child would be shifted to a Children’s Home. After completing 18 years, the child would be moved to a Care Home, where skill development training would be given up to 21 years of age.
The petitioner’s counsel relied on earlier decisions, namely Z vs. State of Bihar & Ors, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 572, and YYYY & Anr v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1238, to support his submissions on the rights and treatment of rape survivors with unwanted pregnancies.
After considering the submissions and the Medical Board’s opinion, the Patna High Court held that termination of the pregnancy was not medically viable at the current period of gestation. The Court noted that the petitioner’s counsel had appropriately refrained from pressing the termination prayer in view of the unanimous expert opinion.
The Court then focused on the future: since the petitioner would have to complete the pregnancy and deliver the baby, it was necessary for State authorities to provide strong support to both the victim and the child.
The Court issued a series of directions. First, it directed Ms. Amrita Pritam, the Chairman of the CWC, and the Collector, Begusarai, to ensure periodic check-ups and safe delivery in a government hospital at Begusarai. If expert medical assistance was needed, the petitioner was to be taken to a specialised hospital in Begusarai or nearby.
Second, doctors and medical experts were requested to provide all necessary assistance and facilities for safe delivery, either in the government hospital or a specialised centre. Third, the authorities were directed to reserve a separate room for the petitioner and her family members in the concerned hospital at the time of delivery.
Fourth, after successful delivery, the authorities and the hospital were told to ensure that both the newborn and the mother receive the best medical assistance available so that the child can grow into a healthy baby.
Fifth, the Court addressed the situation where the mother and her parents may not wish or may be unable to take responsibility for the child. In that case, the State Government and its agencies must take full responsibility. The child is to be kept in an Adoption Centre run by the State Government in collaboration with an NGO, and all efforts must be made to arrange adoption according to law.
Sixth, recognising that the petitioner is a minor and a victim of rape, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, to pay Rs. 1 lakh into the bank account of the petitioner’s father. This amount is meant to meet post-delivery expenses such as food, medical costs and consumables. It is to be used exclusively for the benefit of the petitioner.
The Court clarified that this Rs. 1 lakh is over and above whatever the petitioner is entitled to receive under the Victim Compensation Scheme framed under Section 357A of the CrPC. The Court also stated that the victim’s father may approach the State Legal Services Authority or the District Legal Services Authority for further assistance if needed.
Finally, the Court directed that counselling should be provided to the petitioner regularly before and after delivery for at least six months, depending on her mental and psychological condition. The Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Begusarai, was asked to coordinate with State authorities to ensure that all the directions are implemented in the best interest of the petitioner and the newborn. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for minor rape survivors and their families. It shows that even when medical termination of pregnancy is no longer possible because of advanced gestation, the Court can still step in to secure strong support from the State.
The decision highlights that the State must provide:
safe delivery under expert doctors,
medical care for both mother and child,
financial assistance beyond the usual compensation,
and proper counselling for psychological trauma.
The judgment also makes clear that a minor rape survivor cannot be forced to keep and raise a child if she and her family are unable to do so. The State is required to take full responsibility for the newborn, including keeping the child in an Adoption Centre and making lawful arrangements for adoption and long-term care.
For police and child protection officials, the case underlines their statutory duty under the JJ Act and POCSO to promptly inform the Child Welfare Committee and the courts when a child is found to be a victim of sexual offence and in need of care and protection.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Should the Patna High Court allow medical termination of a 32-week pregnancy of a minor rape survivor?
Answer: No. Relying on the unanimous opinion of the AIIMS Medical Board that termination was not medically indicated or viable at 32 weeks, the Court did not permit abortion and the petitioner did not press that prayer.
Issue: What obligations do State authorities have towards a minor rape survivor compelled to continue an advanced pregnancy and the resulting child?
Answer: The Court directed State authorities to ensure safe delivery, best possible medical care, separate hospital accommodation, financial assistance of Rs. 1 lakh, continuous counselling, and full responsibility for the child’s care and adoption if the family cannot keep the baby.
Issue: How should the State handle the long-term welfare of a child born from rape where the minor mother does not wish or is unable to raise the child?
Answer: The child must be placed in an Adoption Centre run by the State with NGOs, efforts must be made for lawful adoption, and the child is to be shifted later to Children’s Home and Care Home with skill training up to 21 years, as per the child protection framework described to the Court.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Z vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2018) 11 SCC 572.
- YYYY & Anr v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Ker 1238.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5960 of 2022
Case Title: ABC v. State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 59
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 17.05.2022
Nature of Case: Writ petition seeking medical termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor and consequential reliefs.
Advocates for Petitioner: Mr. Abu Nasar, Mr. Zeya Ismail, Mr. Atul Kumar Jha, Advocates
Advocate for Respondents (State): Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, AC to GP 4
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyM2MTEjMjAxOCMxI04=-Z0F1lWTGVAc=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
