Facts of the Case

A minor girl was subjected to sexual assault and subsequently became pregnant. The matter came before the High Court when a petition was filed by the child’s legal guardian seeking permission for medical termination of the pregnancy, in light of her age, vulnerability and the circumstances of the assault. A medical board convened by the hospital provided its opinion that termination could be carried out safely, considering the child’s physical, psychological and socio-economic condition. The State and hospital authorities participated in the proceedings and furnished the required medical and welfare materials. The case thus confronted both the immediate medical and welfare relief for the child, as well as the broader question of systemic institutional response to sexual offences against minors.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner argued that because the child was very young, continuing the pregnancy would cause grave trauma and adverse long-term consequences for her physical and mental health. It was submitted that given the family’s socio-economic constraints, the child and her family were not in a position to manage the responsibilities arising from birth and upbringing of a child, especially one born out of sexual assault. It was also emphasised that the child’s education would be disrupted, that she would be exposed to social stigma and that her right to bodily autonomy and dignity must be respected. On these grounds, the petitioner urged the Court to accept the medical board’s opinion and allow a medically supervised termination of pregnancy, and to ensure that the institutional framework governing child sexual abuse cases catered appropriately to her rehabilitation, education continuity, mental-health needs and reintegration.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State and hospital authorities submitted the medical board’s report and did not oppose the relief sought by the petitioner on medical grounds. They acknowledged the child’s vulnerability and the legal duty of the State to ensure a protective, child-sensitive institutional response. The respondents did not dispute the facts of assault or pregnancy and accepted the need for reform in how agencies coordinate, ensure confidentiality, manage trauma, protect the child’s education and monitor long-term rehabilitation. In effect, they engaged both on the specific relief and the broader institutional obligations.

Court’s Observations

The Court, led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, observed that the case “is not merely about medical termination of pregnancy” but speaks to broader systemic defects in the way minor victims of sexual offences are handled. The Court remarked: “Directions having been issued on several occasions, they continue to be ignored, and there is no compliance.” The Court found that the absence of a unified, time-bound, technology-driven workflow results in “procedural ambiguity, delays, and inter-agency friction”, undermining the rights of the child survivor. The Court held that in the event of any conflict between existing rules, schemes or protocols and child-protection principles, “the interpretation that affords the greatest protection and benefit to the child shall prevail,” invoking the mandate of Section 42A of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court further asserted that every minor victim of sexual offence must be treated as a “Child in Need of Care and Protection” under Section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 from the moment the offence is reported, thereby invoking the jurisdiction and welfare remit of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC). Recognising that multiple agencies – police, medical, DCPU, CWC, schools – operate in silos, the Court emphasised the need for an integrated platform. As the judgment states: “I am of the opinion that all these could be resolved if a proper SOP is formulated by the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Welfare and the Director General of Police for all stakeholders to comply with. Until then, I propose to formulate the following indicative SOP, which would be in force until such a SOP is formulated.” The Court accepted the medical board’s opinion that continuing the pregnancy would not be in the minor’s best interests, given her age and vulnerability, and underscored the child’s right to bodily autonomy and dignity.

Court’s Order

The Court granted the petition by permitting the medical termination of the pregnancy in accordance with the medical board’s recommendation and applicable medical norms. The Court further issued a comprehensive indicative Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which shall remain binding on all relevant agencies until the State frames and notifies its final SOP. The salient features of the Court’s SOP include:

• Treatment of every minor victim of sexual offence as a child in need of care and protection (CNCP) under the Juvenile Justice Act, thereby immediately invoking CWC jurisdiction.
• Creation of a Digital POCSO Portal (DPP): a secure, cloud-based case-management platform for end-to-end workflow, inter-agency communication, data sharing, real-time compliance monitoring.
• Use of a Pseudonym Identifier (PID): a unique alphanumeric code assigned to each victim, to be used in records, communications and judgments instead of the child’s real name, to ensure anonymity.
• Appointment of an individual under Rule 4(7) of the POCSO Rules, 2020 to provide informational, emotional and practical assistance to the child during investigation and trial.
• Establishment of 24/7 dedicated medico-legal and psychological units in designated government/private hospitals, with trained female doctors, nurses and counsellors.
• Within seven days of offence reporting, a trauma assessment by a psychologist or clinical psychiatric social worker; preparation of a Psychological Support Plan (PSP) tailored to child’s age, developmental stage and psychological needs, including stated therapeutic modality (e.g., CBT, play therapy, art therapy), frequency (weekly for first three months, then fortnightly or as needed) and measurable goals; PSP to be appended to child’s Individual Care Plan (ICP) on the DPP for monitoring by CWC. Therapy to continue for minimum two years post-incident or until certified psychological stability. All therapy communications/records strictly confidential and inadmissible as evidence.
• Enrolment of child and family into relevant government schemes (such as ICDS). The child shall not be withdrawn from school unless medically unavoidable; if safety demands a school transfer, it must be discreet and without public disclosure of reasons to protect child from stigma.
• Bi-monthly progress reports to be uploaded by the District Child Protection Officer on the DPP to be monitored by CWC until the child turns 18. Rehabilitation file on DPP may only be formally closed after the child attains majority and CWC certifies, based on final comprehensive assessment by treating psychologist and case social worker, that ICP goals are substantially met and the child is successfully and safely reintegrated.
• For cases where the minor victim elects to continue with the pregnancy, the CWC shall formulate and approve an Integrated Mother-and-Child Care Plan (IMCCP) on the DPP embracing post-partum care, adoption or alternative care options, covering minimum two years post-birth for both mother and infant.
• Formation of DPP dashboards and key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure effectiveness of the SOP via data analytics, enabling tracking of compliance, timelines and outcomes. The Court further directed the Principal Secretary, Women & Child Welfare Department, and the Director General of Police to expedite the formulation and notification of the final State SOP in conformity with these parameters. Until such SOP is issued, the Court’s indicative SOP shall apply in full force and have binding effect on all agencies and authorities enumerated in the order.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai