Medical Boards under MTP Act must give complete, clear, cogent opinions: HC

Jabalpur: Taking cognisance of the fact that the opinions of medical boards on medical termination of pregnancy did not contain complete information in several cases, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that the board formed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act must provide "complete, cogent and clear opinions" with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971.

"It is also seen that the opinions of the medical board placed before this Court for consideration are not giving complete information as required under the MTP Act. There should be specific observations and clear opinion in terms of the requirements under Section 3 of the MTP Act to the effect that (i) the opinion formed is in good faith (ii) 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 and (iii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality," observed the HC bench comprising Justice Vishal Mishra.

"Generally the reports which are sent to this Court for perusal are silent about the aforesaid. Under these circumstances, the Medical Board duly constituted in terms of Section 3 of the MTP Act is directed to provide complete, cogent and clear opinions with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971," it directed.

These directions were issued by the High Court bench in a suo motu petition, which was initiated in pursuance of a letter addressed to the Principal Registrar (judicial) dated 23.08.2025.

The case concerned a minor, aged around 17 years. Allegedly she was sexually assaulted and raped by the accused and an FIR was registered in this connection against the accused at Police Station Ramnagar District Maihar for the offences under Sections 137(2), 87, 64(2)(m), 64(2)(h) & 332(b) of the BNS and Sections 5(I)/6, 5(q)/6 of the POCSO Act. During the medical examination, the victim was found to be pregnant.

Even though the Medical Report stated that the pregnancy could be terminated, the victim and her mother did not give consent for the termination of pregnancy. The HC bench noted that despite the fact that the victim as well as her mother did not give consent, the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan referred the matter to the High Court.

"The consent of a pregnant woman in decisions of reproductive autonomy and termination of pregnancy is paramount. Once there is no consent, no order regarding termination of pregnancy can be passed. The order sheet of the trial Court dated 22.08.2025 further reflects that the prosecutrix has solemnized marriage with the accused and she wants that the accused should be released from jail," the HC bench noted at this outset.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of A vs State of Maharashtra, where the Apex Court had observed that the choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone.

Further, the Court noted that even the provisions under the MTP Act 1971 state that "(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."

It was observed by the High Court that since the age of fetus is exceeding 24 weeks in the present case, the SOPs in terms of the order passed by the Division bench of the HC In reference (suo moto) vs State of M.P. : Writ Petition No. 5184 of 2025 decided on 20.02.2025 are required to be followed in the present case.

Referring to the SOPs, the HC bench noted, "If the aforesaid proposition of law is applied to the facts of the present case, then it is seen that the consent of pregnant woman will be of paramount consideration."

The court further noted that whole considering this aspect a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had held in the case of Suchita Srivastava (supra) that the choice to continue pregnancy to term, regardless of the court having allowed termination of the pregnancy, belongs to the individual alone. Further, the consent of the pregnant person in matters of reproductive choices and abortion is paramount. Even the MTP Act, particularly clause (4) of Section 3, speaks of the same.

Accordingly, the bench opined, "In the instant case, the consent was not given for termination of pregnancy. The age of prosecutrix to be 17 years and the medical report dated 22.08.2025 shows that she was carrying pregnancy of more than 28 weeks; however, she wants to continue the pregnancy, therefore, there was no occasion for the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Amarpatan District Satna (M.P.) to have referred the matter to this Court for passing an order with respect to termination of pregnancy."

"It is generally seen that in cases under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), the references are made to this Court in a casual manner. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of In Reference (Suo Motu) vs State of M.P. and others : WP No. 5184 of 2025 decided on 20.02.2025 had an occasion to deal with the similar situation relating to termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act and after considering the relevant provisions of the MTP Act has prepared SOP to be followed in cases of termination of pregnancy. The SOP are required to be followed in such cases," it further observed.

"The fact remains that Section 3 of the MTP Act is very clear and specifically provides that the pregnancy can be terminated where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks based upon the opinion of a registered medical practitioner and the consent given by the guardian or the victim in case where she is minor or major respectively. In case the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, the MTP Act provides for the opinion to be given by two registered medical practitioners as well as the consent of either guardian or the victim as the case may be. The SOP which is formed in WP No. 5184 of 2025 has clearly held that in case of survivor of sexual assault or rape or incest whether the pregnancy exceeds 24 weeks, permission from this Court is required for termination of pregnancy," the bench observed at this outset.

"In view whereof, if the pregnancy does not exceed 24 weeks, learned trial Courts/Sessions Courts are having jurisdiction to pass orders with respect to termination of pregnancy in terms of Section 3 of the MTP Act based upon the consent of the guardian or the pregnant woman, as the case may be, taking into consideration the opinion given by a registered medical practitioner where the length of the pregnancy is upto 20 weeks and in case it exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks, by two registered medical practitioners. Such cases are not required to be referred to this Court for termination of pregnancy," it clarified.

Further, the bench observed that the opinions of the medical board placed before the High Court for consideration are not giving complete information as required under the MTP Act.

Taking note of the same, the bench ordered,

"There should be specific observations and clear opinion in terms of the requirements under Section 3 of the MTP Act to the effect that (i) the opinion formed is in good faith (ii) 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 and (iii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality."

"Generally the reports which are sent to this Court for perusal are silent about the aforesaid. Under these circumstances, the Medical Board duly constituted in terms of Section 3 of the MTP Act is directed to provide complete, cogent and clear opinions with respect to the cases falling under the MTP Act, 1971. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of finally," it further mentioned in the order.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/mp-hc-mtp-act-300477.pdf

Also Read: Kerala HC refuses to quash case against Gynaecologist over Alleged Misconduct During MTP