Jammu Kashmir HC Rejects Minor Rape Survivor's Plea To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy
Jammu & Kashmir High Court has directed the administration to provide complete medical care, counselling, protection, and rehabilitation to the minor rape survivor.
By ETV Bharat Jammu & Kashmir Team
Published : May 22, 2026 at 3:14 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a plea seeking abortion of a twenty-seven-week pregnancy of a fourteen-year-old rape survivor from south Kashmir's Kulgam.
In a 23-page judgement, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal ruled that a minor's reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot override medical realities when termination of pregnancy poses an imminent threat to her life. Justice Nargal held that constitutional courts cannot ignore expert medical opinion warning against termination at an advanced stage of pregnancy, particularly where doctors foresee grave obstetric complications and long-term reproductive harm.
The court, however, invoked the doctrine of "parens patriae" and directed the Jammu and Kashmir administration to provide complete medical care, counselling, protection, and rehabilitation to the minor survivor and the prospective child. It also ordered that all adoption-related procedures for the newborn, if required, be carried out under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The case arose from a petition filed through the minor's father after the girl conceived following an alleged rape. An FIR number 38/2026 had been registered at Police Station D H Pora in Kulgam district, and the accused was stated to be in custody.
According to the judgement, the pregnancy had crossed 25 weeks and five days when the petition was filed. The Child Welfare Committee, Kulgam, had declared the girl a "child in need of care and protection" and recommended urgent legal and medical intervention.
The petitioner sought judicial permission for medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, arguing that continuation of pregnancy would severely affect the child’s mental and physical health, education, and future. Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Asifa Rashid argued that forcing a 14-year-old rape survivor to continue pregnancy would violate her "right to life, dignity and bodily integrity" under Article 21.
The High Court constituted a medical board comprising specialists from various disciplines and directed it to assess whether termination could safely be carried out. The board later informed the court that termination at the advanced stage of pregnancy carried an "extremely high risk of medical complications" and could endanger the life of the minor.
Quoting the board's findings, the judgement recorded that termination could lead to "prolonged and failed induction, hysterectomy, postpartum haemorrhage, puerperal sepsis, intensive care requirement, multiple blood transfusions, and secondary infertility as a long-term sequel". The board also warned of risks to the foetus, including respiratory distress syndrome and neonatal demise.
Justice Nargal drew a distinction between the present case and a recent Supreme Court order permitting termination of a twenty-eight-week pregnancy, observing that in that case the medical board had declared the minor physically fit for the procedure.
"The right to seek termination cannot be construed as an absolute right divorced from medical realities and expert assessment," the court observed.
The judgement further underlined that courts cannot substitute medical expertise with judicial discretion.
"Courts are not expected to substitute their own views for the opinion of specialists and super-specialists who are equipped to assess the medical feasibility, safety, and consequences of such procedures," Justice Nargal said.
Stressing on the preservation of life, the court said, "The paramount consideration before this Court has to be the preservation and protection of the life of the pregnant minor herself."
The judge also held that sympathy alone cannot justify a direction that may expose the victim to life-threatening consequences.
Also Read
