ORDER : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. R.B. Thakor for the Petitioner and learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the respondent State through video conference. Considering the peculiar nature of case, this matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. This Petition is filed by the Petitioner who is the victim of rape case through her legal guardian mother, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short ‘MTP Act’). 3. The petitioner seek relief in terms of paragraph 8 (A) and (B) which reads as under: “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent authority to terminate the pregnancy of petitioner-victim Kinjal who is minor aged 14 years, at the earliest, as the same being in best interest of the victim, considering her very young age, physical health and incident of rape causing grave injury to her mental health and further be pleased to direct the respondent no. 3 to hand over, in scientific manner, the tissues drawn from the fetus for DNA identification to the Police Sub Inspector, Tharad Police Station for onward transmission of the same to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory, interest of justice. (B) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordshipss may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to 3 to conduct medical termination of pregnancy of the minor victim with two qualified surgeons including Gynecologist, Obstctrician and in presence of qualified physician with due care and precaution after carrying out necessary medical check-up, so as to avoid any likelihood of untoward harm to the physical or mental health of the minor victim Kinjal, in the interest of justice.” 4. Facts of the case. 4.1 It is stated in the Application that the petitioner is aged 14 years and doing labour work in farm with her parents. The petitioner is residing in a premises of one Nanjiji Kumpaji Patel in Banaskantha district along with her parents and her brother. 4.2 It is further stated that the Accused is residing beside the house of petitioner and was friend of father of the petitioner. The petitioner is residing in a premises of one Nanjiji Kumpaji Patel in Banaskantha district along with her parents and her brother. 4.2 It is further stated that the Accused is residing beside the house of petitioner and was friend of father of the petitioner. That four months prior to May 2020, when the petitioner was at her caster farm, the accused had forcibly raped the petitioner and administered threats to her that if she complained about the same to her parents, he would kill the petitioner and her parents. Out of fear, terror and shock, petitioner did not inform her parents. Thereafter, as the petitioner didn't get her monthly period for last three months the mother of the petitioner inquired about that to her daughter. The petitioner told her mother about the rape incident occurred with her. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner went to the hospital, where, the Doctor medically examined the petitioner and informed her mother that petitioner is pregnant. Thereafter, on 24.05.2020, the mother of petitioner lodged an FIR being I-C.R. No. 111950200429 of 2020 at Tharad Police Station, District: Banaskantha, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(3) and 506(2) of IPC and under Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. That the petitioner is found to be carrying pregnancy and is suffering immensely, mentally as well as physically. That the pregnancy is beyond stipulated period of 20 weeks and 6 days, termination of pregnancy can be done after obtaining permission in accordance with the MTP Act. 4.3 It is also stated that she has taken decision of filing and seeking relief for termination of pregnancy with consent of all the family members of the petitioners and more particularly, taking into consideration the mental and physical condition of the petitioner girl. That the pregnancy is at crucial stage, the pregnancy is caused by the rape causing injury to mental health of the petitioner. That the termination of pregnancy is in the best interest of the petitioner. 4.4 It is also stated that the mental health of the pregnant woman coupled with the fact that bearing and rearing of a child in the womb would create a great mental agony to the victim for her entire life and may invite other social-economical problems. That the termination of pregnancy is in the best interest of the petitioner. 4.4 It is also stated that the mental health of the pregnant woman coupled with the fact that bearing and rearing of a child in the womb would create a great mental agony to the victim for her entire life and may invite other social-economical problems. That the parents of the victim very emphatically reiterate that the untoward pregnancy of their daughter-victim was due to rape for which she suffered great physical and mental health. That the continuation of pregnancy may cause anguish trauma innumerable suffering of mental, physical, social and economical. Therefore the pregnancy is required to be terminated in the larger interest of justice. 5. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has further argued that Section 3 of the MTP Act allows abortion only if specific conditions are met with. That the woman’s right to make reproductive choices vis-a-vis dimension of personal liberty as understood under Article of the Constitution of India, the guidelines given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is important to recognize that reproductive choice can be exercised to procreate as well as abstain from procreating. 6. This Court (Coram: Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.) has passed the below mentioned order on 10.6.2020 which reads as under: “1. Heard Mr. R.B. Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State, through Video Conferencing. 2. Mr. Thakor, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that by way of present petition, necessary direction has been sought for to the respondent authority to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner-victim aged 14 years. It is next submitted that the mental health of the pregnant woman coupled with the fact that bearing and rearing of her child in womb would create mental agony to the victim for her entire life and may invite socio-economy problems. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that on a similar set of facts in the case of the minor girl aged 14 years, this Court, vide order dated 08.06.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 3679 of 2016, permitted the termination of the pregnancy beyond stipulated period of 20 weeks. It is, thus, requested that similar direction be issued in the present case also. 3. It is, thus, requested that similar direction be issued in the present case also. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the matter be referred to the General Hospital, Palanpur for necessary opinion in the matter of feasibility of continuing/terminating the pregnancy of the victim. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, has suggested the names of the doctors namely, Dr. M.U. Patel, Head of the Department, Banas Medical College, Dr. Madhusudan Gadhvi, Full Time Gynecologist and Dr. Shweta Gupta, Gynecologist. 4. This Court, vide order dated 08.06.2016 passed in Special Criminal Application (Direction) No. 3679 of 2016, in paragraphs 15, 16 and 17, has observed thus: “15. Since the request is made by the petitioner herself with the consent of the parents, bearing in mind, her very young age and incident of rape with pregnancy, grave injury to her mental health is to be presumed. Her fragile health and poor haemoglobin level requires that the team of the Doctors needs to examine her once again and also ensure her safety as this Court is of the opinion that it would be in the best interest of the victim to permit the termination of pregnancy, if otherwise, there is unanimity amongst the Doctors to the effect that such termination would be carried out safely. 16. Let the Senior Expert Doctor interacting with the prosecutrix-petitioner and her parents and without further reference to this Court, take a decision bearing in mind the ‘best interest principle’ and terminate her pregnancy as soon as possible. 17. The outcome and well being of the petitioner shall be reported to this Court within one week. The concerned Doctors shall examine the level of haemoglobin and carry out all other necessary tests before proceeding to terminate the pregnancy. Once termination is over, the petitioner-minor shall continue to receive treatment for the length of period deemed necessary by the Senior Most Doctor of the team.” 5. In view of the aforesaid and more particularly when the petitioner has through her legal guardian and mother Hansaben Ragnathbhai Thakor requested for direction to the respondent authority to terminate the pregnancy, a detailed medical report needs to be called for before permission of termination of pregnancy is acceded to. Therefore, the Medical Superintendent, Palanpur General Hospital is directed to cause to examine the petitioner by a panel of senior-most Gynecologists namely, Dr. Therefore, the Medical Superintendent, Palanpur General Hospital is directed to cause to examine the petitioner by a panel of senior-most Gynecologists namely, Dr. M.U. Patel, Head of the Department, Banas Medical College, Dr. Madhusudan Gadhvi, Full Time Gynecologist and Dr. Shweta Gupta, Gynecologist. The team of doctors shall examine the victim on 12.06.2020 and after an interaction with her, shall give in writing opinion at the earliest, bearing in mind the advanced stage of pregnancy and her physical and mental condition, whether there will be a substantial risk to the life of the petitioner, if the child was born, or that the child would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. 6. The Medical Superintendent, Palanpur General Hospital shall admit the petitioner at the earliest and shall only discharge her after the Court's order. 7. The Registry is directed to furnish the copy of this order to learned advocates appearing for the respective parties for follow-up action. Stand over to 15.06.2020.” 7. In pursuance of the above order, this court has received the opinion of the panel Dr. Sunil R. Joshi, Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Banas Medical College and Research Institute, Palanpur vide Letter No. GNPCT/BMCRI/MS/2020106/13/03 dated 13.06.2020 addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Gujarat High Court, with case papers, which is taken on record. It reads as under: “As per order of Honorable Gujarat High Court, Dated 10.06.2020, we have formed panel of Gynecologist of Bana Medical Collage and Research Institute and General Hosptial, Palanpur, which is as follows: (1) Dr. M.U. Patel (head of Department of the Gynecology BMCRI) (2) Dr. Madhusudan Gadhvi (Gynecologist) (3) Dr. Shweta Gupta (Gynecologist) The above mentioned panel, have given its report for aforesaid matter which is attached here with. As Pregnancy is 20 weeks and 6 Days as on 12.06.2020, special permission of Honorable Gujarat High Court is required as per MTP ACT 1971 and MTP Rules 2003.” 8. Learned Advocate for the Applicant has submitted that the Doctors have clearly opined that Continuation of pregnancy may affect her physical and mental health. So termination of pregnancy is advisable with due risk after ANC profile report. It is further submitted that continuation of pregnancy is going to affect her mental and physical status. What is of prime importance is the health of the petitioner. So termination of pregnancy is advisable with due risk after ANC profile report. It is further submitted that continuation of pregnancy is going to affect her mental and physical status. What is of prime importance is the health of the petitioner. He has urged that the ‘Best interests’ is prescribed by the Apex Court is the requirement as to whether the decision would sub serve the interest of the person in question and the decision of the Court should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not of those of other stakeholders. It is also the say of the learned advocate that the parents of the victim are also undergoing traumatic condition seeing the condition of the girl. It is also argued that it is the petitioner’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution as a personal liberty whether she should carry the pregnancy or not. He has relied upon the judgments which will be discussed hereinafter. 9. Learned APP for the Respondent State argued that the Court should left it to the discretion of the team of Doctors, as has been done in case of Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar and Another vs. State of Gujarat, Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6013/2015 and Special Criminal Application No. 4255/2015, wherein it had been observed that if the team of doctors is of the view that termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save life of the victim, the concerned doctor of the Civil Hospital shall perform necessary surgery. It is further argued that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, personal liberty as included in Article 21 of the Constitution, he has requested to pass just and equitable order. 10. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, the relevant provision of the MTP Act are required to be taken into consideration, which reads under: “3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner:- (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner is. (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in good faith, that:- (i) 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. (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Explanation 1 - Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Explanation 2 - Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. (3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken to the pregnant woman's actual or reasonable foreseeable environment. (4) (a)......... (b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.” 11. This court has considered the following judgments cited by both the parties: (A) Suchita Srivastava and Another vs. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 3 GLH 468 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. A plain reading of the above-quoted provision makes it clear that Indian law allows for abortion only if the specified conditions are met. When the MTP Act was first enacted in 1971 it was largely modelled on the Abortion Act of 1967 which had been passed in the United Kingdom. The legislative intent was to provide a qualified `right to abortion' and the termination of pregnancy has never been recognised as a normal recourse for expecting mothers. When the MTP Act was first enacted in 1971 it was largely modelled on the Abortion Act of 1967 which had been passed in the United Kingdom. The legislative intent was to provide a qualified `right to abortion' and the termination of pregnancy has never been recognised as a normal recourse for expecting mothers. 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. However, in the case of pregnant women there is also a `compelling state interest' in protecting the life of the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive choices. 19. As evident from its literal description, the ‘Best interests’ test requires the Court to ascertain the course of action which would serve the best interests of the person in question. In the present setting this means that the Court must undertake a careful inquiry of the medical opinion on the feasibility of the pregnancy as well as social circumstances faced by the victim. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of other stakeholders such as guardians or society in general. It is evident that the woman in question will need care and assistance which will in turn entail some costs. It is important to note that the Court's decision should be guided by the interests of the victim alone and not those of other stakeholders such as guardians or society in general. It is evident that the woman in question will need care and assistance which will in turn entail some costs. However, that cannot be a ground for denying the exercise of reproductive rights.” (B) The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in case of Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar vs. State of Gujarat, 2015 (8) SCC 721 as under: “4. If the team of the afore-stated doctors is of the view that termination of the pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of Ms Maitri, the doctor concerned of the Civil Hospital shall perform necessary surgery, if the petitioner and Ms Maitri desire to go through to such abortion, without taking any permission from this Court. If there is no unanimity among the doctors, majority view of the doctors shall prevail.” (C) This Court has also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dr. Jacob George vs. State of Kerala, 1994 (3) SCC 430 . (D) This Court has also considered the judgment passed by this Court (Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J.) in Special Criminal Application No. 1919/2015 in case of Ashaben W/o Dineshbhai Jasubhai Talsaniya (Devipujak) vs. State of Gujarat, judgment and order dated 7.5.2020 passed by this Court (Coram: Vireshkumar B. Mayani, J.) in case of Shaida Khatoon W/o Israel Jeebach Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat and also the judgment dated 14.5.2020 passed by this Court (Coram: V.P. Patel, J.) in Special Criminal Application No. 2239/2020. 12. As per Section 3(2)(a) of the MTP Act, where the length of pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks if such medical practitioner is, or, (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of opinion, formed in food faith, that the continuation of pregnancy would invoke a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical life or mental health or there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. 12.1 Here in this case, pregnancy is of 20 weeks and 6 days, therefore, the Medical Practitioners cannot on its own terminate the pregnancy. If they terminate the pregnancy without the order of the court, the act of the Doctor amounts to an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code or for any other for time being in force. 12.2 As per the Explanation 1 below Section 3 of the MTP Act, it is provided that where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish cause by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute grave injury to the mental of the pregnant woman. 12.3 In this case the petitioner is pregnant because of forcible rape of incident by the accused. As per the contents of the petition, it is submitted that bearing and rearing of child in the womb would create a great mental agony to her for her entire life and invite many other socio-economical problems. This can be said to be a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. 12.4 In the case of Chandrakant Jayantilal Suthar vs. State of Gujarat (supra) the pregnancy was of 24 weeks. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted permission to terminate the pregnancy considering the request of the victim and personal liberty and best interest factors. 12.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarmistha Chakraborty vs. Union of India, (2018) 13 SCC 339 : (2017) 7 Scale 389 has granted permission to terminate the pregnancy of 25 weeks. 13. Considering the contents of the petition, provision of the applicable law, ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above referred to cases, right of privacy of the petitioner, medical reports, and bearing in mind the best interest principle, as discussed herein above, the court is of the view that termination of pregnancy of the petitioner will survive the interest of justice. Therefore, the petition is required to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. She is permitted to terminate her pregnancy at the earliest. 14. The concerned Doctors shall terminate the pregnancy with due risk after ANC profile report as well as other medical expert care as required in medical jurisprudence to protect the life of victim. The outcome and well being of the petitioner shall be reported to this court within one week. 15. 14. The concerned Doctors shall terminate the pregnancy with due risk after ANC profile report as well as other medical expert care as required in medical jurisprudence to protect the life of victim. The outcome and well being of the petitioner shall be reported to this court within one week. 15. The Medical Superintendent of the Banas Medical College and Research Institute, Palanpur shall hand over, in scientific manner, the tissues drawn from the foetus for DNA identification to the concerned investigating officer of the crime registered by the petitioner against the accused at Tharad Police Station, District Banaskantha for onward transmission of the same to the concerned Forensic Science Laboratory. 16. Registry is directed to provide copy of this order to the learned APP for onward communication and to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, to the concerned Investigating Officer and concerned Medical Superintendent, Banas Medical College & Research Institute, Palanpur for follow up action by email/fax message/or any other suitable electronic mode. 17. With the above directions, this petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute.