JUDGMENT 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant writ petition was preferred as a Single Bench writ petition by the petitioner Miss 'R' (minor) through her mother Smt. Samdu Devi with a prayer to direct termination of pregnancy being carried by the petitioner herein and in the alternate, to direct the respondents to compensate the petitioner with a sum of Rs.50, 000, 00/- for her own welfare and welfare of her ward (to be born). 3. The background facts which require mention are noted herein below: The petitioner, who is a child within the meaning of 'Prevention of Chidren from Sexual Offences Act' was allegedly kidnapped by one Gopal. It appears that the said Gopal sexually assaulted the petitioner whereupon, she conceived. Presently, she is carrying a fetus of 21 weeks 5 days. While dealing with the Habeas Corpus Petition No.36/2018 (Shivlal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) preferred by the petitioner's father, Hon'ble the Division Bench of this Court passed the following order: "This petition seeking writ of habeas corpus is filed by the petitioner Shiv Lal for release of his minor daughter, alleged to be in illegal detention of respondents no.4 to 6 herein. The corpus was produced before us on 19.4.18. On being interviewed, the corpus stated that she was staying with the respondent no.4 herein. She declined to go with her father Shiv Lal. Taking into consideration the fact that the corpus was staying with the respondent no.4 for last six months and there was possibility of her being under his influence, the corpus was directed to be kept at Balika Grah, Jodhpur till further orders. On 1.5.18, the corpus staying at Balika Grah, Jodhpur pursuant to the order dated 19.4.18 passed by this court as aforesaid, was again produced before us. We conferred with the corpus in Chamber in presence of her father Shiv Lal, the petitioner herein and the counsel for the parties. The corpus again declined to go with her father. She stated that she had entered into marriage with respondent no.4- Gopal. However, as per the mark sheet of the Secondary Examination of the corpus produced before us, the date of birth of corpus is 10.10.03 and accordingly, she is below 15 years of age. The corpus again declined to go with her father. She stated that she had entered into marriage with respondent no.4- Gopal. However, as per the mark sheet of the Secondary Examination of the corpus produced before us, the date of birth of corpus is 10.10.03 and accordingly, she is below 15 years of age. However, the corpus stated that her date of birth mentioned in the mark sheet is not correct and she has already attained the age of majority. Keeping in view the discrepancy regarding the age of the corpus, we directed Principal, S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur to constitute a Medical Board for determination of the actual age of the corpus. As per the Medical Report produced before us, the corpus is 15 to 17 years of age. Further, she is carrying pregnancy for more than 15 weeks. Today, the corpus is produced before us. We have again conferred with the corpus in presence of her father. The corpus has stated in unequivocal terms that she is ready to go with her father but, he should not insist upon her to enter into marriage with anybody else and further, she should not be compelled to terminate the pregnancy. The petitioner has filed an affidavit before this court stating that he will maintain her daughter in proper manner and she will be permitted to enter into marriage as per her own desire on attaining the age of majority and further that she shall not be compelled to terminate the pregnancy. In view of the affidavit filed by the petitioner as aforesaid, the corpus has expressed her desire before this court go with her father. Accordingly, the custody of the corpus, the minor daughter of the petitioner, is handed over to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that disposal of this petition shall not preclude the police from proceeding with the investigation of the crime if any committed." 4. However, it appears that after the said undertaking given by the petitioner's father before this Court, by way of a subsequent development, the petitioner herein approached the competent authorities with a prayer to terminate her pregnancy which she alleged to be an outcome of rape. However, it appears that after the said undertaking given by the petitioner's father before this Court, by way of a subsequent development, the petitioner herein approached the competent authorities with a prayer to terminate her pregnancy which she alleged to be an outcome of rape. However, claiming that the concerned authorities, refused to terminate the fetus borne by the petitioner due to rape, the petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the aforesaid prayers. 5. Pursuant to a direction given by this Court on 30.05.2018, a medical report dated 02.06.2018 of the petitioner issued by the Medical Board concerned was placed on record of the writ petition. 6. The Medical Board observed that the patient did not report to the Medical Board. However, as per the USG report dated 30.05.2018, the fetus which was opined to be 20 weeks 3 days+/-10 days was suffering from with Anencephaly. 7. The learned Single Bench passed a detailed order dated 12.06.2018 and, considering the aspect that the writ petition was preferred with a prayer which virtually amounted to an attempt to sabotage an undertaking filed by the petitioner's father before the Division Bench in the said Habeas Corpus, directed to place the matter before a Division Bench. 8. On 18.06.2018, the matter was listed before the Division Bench and finding that the Medical Board's report was issued without conducting medical examination of the petitioner herself, a fresh medical report was directed to be prepared after medical examination of the patient herself (the petitioner herein). The said medical opinion was sought with a specific direction that the Board shall examine the aspect of permissibility and feasibility of aborting the fetus carried by the petitioner in light of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The duly constituted Medical Board, after examining the patient, forwarded a report dated 18.06.2018 to this Court in sealed cover which was opened during the course of hearing. The report dated 18.06.2018 reads as below: "Sir, We the members of medical board examined the patient (Rekha D/o Shivram) on 18-06-2018 and investigation advised. All investigation are with in normal limit. U.S.G. shows single live intrauterine foetus of G.A. 21 weeks 4 days with Anencephaly and Polyhydraminos. So after complete examination and evaluation of patient we the members of medical board opine that 1. All investigation are with in normal limit. U.S.G. shows single live intrauterine foetus of G.A. 21 weeks 4 days with Anencephaly and Polyhydraminos. So after complete examination and evaluation of patient we the members of medical board opine that 1. The pregnancy can be terminated according to section 3 of M.T.P act 1971. 2. Risk intrinsic to abortion specially 2nd trimester are 1. Hemorrhage 2. Cervical laceration 3. Infection 4. Uterus perforation 5. Thrombo emoblism 6. Amniotic fluid embolism Risk of mortality is 4-5 times higher then first trimester abortion which is 1/100000." 9. The petitioner is present in camera with her parents. The Court apprised them of the intrinsic risk to the petitioner's life in case of medical termination of pregnancy at this advanced stage. 10. However, they firmly expressed that they are prepared to take the risk. 11. As per Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, a pregnancy exceeding 20 weeks cannot be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman. Such consent, in case of a woman who has not attained the age of 18 years, has to be given by the guardian of the girl. The Medical Board has clearly opined that the fetus is suffering with Anencephaly which is a medical condition described as: "A neural tube defect (NTD) that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th days of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. Infants with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebrum, which is responsible for thinking and coordination. The remaining brain tissue is often exposed; it is not covered by bone or skin." 12. Hon'ble the Supreme Court had the occasion to examine exactly an identical situation in the case of Meera Santosh Pal & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.17 of 2017) decided on 16.01.2017 wherein, the writ petitioner was carrying a fetus diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the infant's death during or shortly after birth. The petitioner therein was into 24th weeks of her pregnancy. (Writ Petition (Civil) No.17 of 2017) decided on 16.01.2017 wherein, the writ petitioner was carrying a fetus diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the infant's death during or shortly after birth. The petitioner therein was into 24th weeks of her pregnancy. Hon'ble the Supreme Court considered the controversy and held: "We have been informed that the fetus is without a skull and would, therefore, not be in a position to survive. It is also submitted that petitioner no.1 has undergone psychiatric evaluation. She is reported to be coherent, has average intelligence and with good comprehension. She understands that her fetus is abnormal and the risk of fetal mortality is high. She also has the support of her husband in her decision making. Upon evaluation of petitioner no.1, the aforesaid Medical Board has concluded that her current pregnancy is of about 24 weeks. The condition of the fetus is not compatible with extra-uterine life. In other words, the fetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus. Importantly, it is reported that the continuation of pregnancy can gravely endanger the physical and mental health of petitioner no.1 and the risk of her termination of pregnancy is within acceptable limits with institutional back up. This Court, as at present being advised, would not enter into the medico-legal aspect of the identity of the fetus but consider it appropriate to decide the matter from the standpoint of the right of petitioner no.1 to preserve her life in view of the foreseeable danger to it, in case she allows the current pregnancy to run its full course. The medical evidence clearly suggests that there is no point in allowing the pregnancy to run its full course since the fetus would not be able to survive outside the uterus without a skull. In Suchita Srivastava and Anr. vs. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 , a bench of three Judges held "a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of 'personal liberty' as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution". The Court there dealt with the importance of the consent of the pregnant woman as an essential requirement for proceeding with the termination of pregnancy. The Court observed as follows:- "22. The Court there dealt with the importance of the consent of the pregnant woman as an essential requirement for proceeding with the termination of pregnancy. The Court observed as follows:- "22. There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of "personal liberty" as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children....." 13. The crucial consideration in the present case is whether the right to bodily integrity calls for a permission to allow her to terminate her pregnancy. The report of the Medical Board clearly warrants the inference that the continuance of the pregnancy involves the risk to the life of the pregnant woman and a possible grave injury to her physical or mental health as required by Section 3 (2)(i) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Though, the pregnancy is into the 24th week, having regard to the danger to the life and the certain inability of the fetus to survive extra uterine life, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. The overriding consideration is that she has a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her own life against the avoidable danger to it. In these circumstances given the danger to her life, there is no doubt that she has a right to protect and preserve her life and particularly since she has made an informed choice. The exercise of her right seems to be within the limits of reproductive autonomy. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interests of justice and particularly, to permit petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The exercise of her right seems to be within the limits of reproductive autonomy. In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate in the interests of justice and particularly, to permit petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The learned Solicitor General Mr. Ranjit Kumar who took notice on the last date of hearing has not opposed the petitioners prayer on any ground, legal or medical. We order accordingly. The termination of pregnancy of petitioner no.1 will be performed by the Doctors of the hospital where she has undergone medical check-up. Further, termination of her pregnancy would be supervised by the above stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete record of the procedure which is to be performed on petitioner No.1 for termination of her pregnancy. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) seeking direction to the respondents to allow petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. With the aforesaid directions, the instant writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer (a) seeking direction to the respondents to allow petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy." 14. The petitioner's parents have filed a written consent on her behalf that they are ready to subject the petitioner to medical termination of pregnancy. 15. As the fetus being carried by the petitioner is suffering from the same defect i.e. Anencephaly alike the one in the case of Meera Santosh Pal, and as the petitioner's pregnancy has reached to 22nd weeks and since, there is no chance of survival of the infant which suffers from intrinsic defect and as the mother's life may also be endangered by continuing the pregnancy, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be accepted to the extent of the prayer made for directing termination of pregnancy carried by the petitioner herein. 16. Thus, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The petitioner's parents shall submit a written consent before the Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur who shall ensure forthwith termination of her pregnancy by the expert Gynecologists at the Ummed Hospital, Jodhpur under the supervision of the Members of the Medical Board which issued the medical report dated 18.06.2018. 17. Stay application is disposed of. No order as to costs. 18. 17. Stay application is disposed of. No order as to costs. 18. A copy of this order be provided to the Government Advocate and be also transmitted to the Superintendent, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jodhpur for compliance forthwith.