An ice-cream trip, a kidnapping, and a pregnancy at 28 weeks: the case that tested medical reality.

An ice-cream trip, a kidnapping, and a pregnancy at 28 weeks: The medical opinion that stopped a court from ordering an abortion

When a 17-year-old girl from a poor family in Kota left her home on the evening of 12 July 2020 to buy ice-cream, she did not return. Her mother filed a missing person report. Two days later, police recovered the girl. She disclosed she had been kidnapped and raped by one Balveer. She was pregnant. By the time her mother approached the Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Kota North, on 7 August 2020, the pregnancy had crossed 20 weeks. The Magistrate dismissed the application as not maintainable under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The girl and her mother then approached the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, seeking a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. The stakes were brutal: a minor rape victim carrying a viable foetus at 28-30 weeks, two independent medical boards saying termination would endanger both her life and the child's, and a court that had to choose between the victim's reproductive choice and the medical reality of a living, breathing foetus.

What the Magistrate said

The Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Kota North, did not mince words. The application for medical termination of pregnancy was dismissed as not maintainable under the MTP Act, 1971. The Magistrate directed the victim to approach the District Legal Services Authority, Kota. That was on 7 August 2020. The DLSA helped file a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court on 26 August 2020. The petitioner was a minor. The respondent was the State of Rajasthan. The case number was S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9471/2020.

The first medical board: Kota Medical College

Justice Ashok Kumar Gaur, sitting singly, heard the matter. On 26 August 2020, the Court directed the Head of the Department of Gynecology, Kota Medical College, to examine the victim and submit a report on her consent and fitness for abortion. The report came back. The gestational age was 28-30 weeks. The foetus was viable. The medical board opined that termination at this stage would endanger both the mother and the foetus. The Court was not satisfied with one opinion. It ordered a second board.

The second medical board: SMS Medical College, Jaipur

On 10 September 2020, the Court directed the constitution of a five-doctor board at SMS Medical College, Jaipur, for an independent opinion. The board examined the victim. Its conclusion was identical: 28-30 weeks gestational age, viable foetus in breech presentation, termination would endanger both maternal and foetal life. Two independent medical boards, both saying the same thing. The Court now had to decide.

The precedents the petitioner relied on

The petitioner's counsel cited a string of Supreme Court and High Court decisions where courts had permitted termination beyond 20 weeks for rape victims. The primary precedent was State of Rajasthan v. S., AIR 2020 Rajasthan 97, where a Division Bench of the same High Court had held that the right of a child rape victim to make a reproductive choice of terminating the foetus heavily outweighs the right of the child in the womb to be born, even where the pregnancy is at an advanced stage. That case had resulted in extensive directions for the State to frame guidelines ensuring rape victims receive timely medical and legal assistance for MTP.

The petitioner also cited Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 749/2017, Supreme Court), where the medical board opinion had permitted termination; Ms. Chanchala Kumari v. Union of India & Anr. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 871 of 2017, Supreme Court), where the medical board had certified feasibility of termination at 24 weeks; and Tapasya Umesh Pisal v. Union of India and Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 635 of 2017, Supreme Court), where the foetus itself had complications making survival outside womb precarious.

The distinction that mattered

Justice Gaur examined each precedent. In every single case where the court had permitted termination, the medical board had certified that termination was feasible or that the foetus had abnormalities making survival outside the womb unlikely. In the present case, the medical boards had done the opposite. They had independently concluded that termination would endanger both the mother and the viable foetus. The Court held that the underlying and determinative factor in all permissive orders was a favourable medical opinion. Without it, the court could not override the medical reality.

THE TEST: When a rape victim seeks court-ordered termination beyond the 20-week statutory limit, the determinative factor is the medical opinion of a duly constituted medical board. If two independent boards opine that termination would endanger both mother and viable foetus, the court cannot override that opinion and must refuse permission.

The obiter that signals the future

The Court made two observations that will matter in future cases. First, permission to a rape victim for termination of pregnancy cannot be refused on the ground that the foetus in the womb has a right to life. That is an obiter — not necessary for the decision — but it affirms that in principle, foetal right to life does not override the rape victim's reproductive choice. Second, the Court stated that in the normal course, it would have passed an order of termination had the medical experts opined that termination would have no effect on the health of the victim. This signals that the refusal is fact-specific, not a general bar on late-term MTP for rape victims. A favourable medical opinion would have led to a different outcome.

The welfare directions

The Court refused the prayer for termination. But it did not stop there. It issued four directions. First, the child to be born shall be provided all remedial measures by the State Government as per the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Second, the District Collector, Kota, shall ensure the child's upbringing with strict adherence to the JJ Act processes. Third, if the child is not adopted, upon attaining suitable age, the child shall be admitted into a good school as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Fourth, all concerned authorities shall ensure secrecy of the pregnancy and anonymity of the petitioner and the child.

Why this matters in practice

For advocates handling MTP petitions for rape victims, this judgment is a sharp reminder: the medical board's opinion is not a formality. It is the fulcrum on which the entire case turns. If the board says termination is feasible, the court will likely permit it. If the board says termination is dangerous, the court will likely refuse it. The practitioner's job is to ensure the medical board is constituted promptly, that the victim's consent is properly recorded, and that the board's report is obtained before the pregnancy advances further. Delay is the enemy. Every week lost reduces the window for a favourable medical opinion.

For CFOs and founders, this judgment is a window into how Indian courts balance individual rights against medical reality. The court did not say the victim's choice was irrelevant. It said the medical opinion was determinative. That is a pragmatic, not a moral, decision. The court also showed that even when it refuses the primary relief, it will not leave the victim and the child without support. The welfare directions under the JJ Act and RTE Act are not afterthoughts — they are part of the operative order.

The bottom line

When a rape victim seeks court-ordered termination beyond 20 weeks, the medical board's opinion is the single most important piece of evidence. If two independent boards say termination is dangerous, the court will not order it — but it will ensure the child born of the rape receives care, education, and anonymity under the law.