ORDER : NUPUR BHATI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming following reliefs:- “(i) The respondents may be directed to terminate the pregnancy of more than 24 weeks of the petitioner and bear all the expenses of such proceeding or; (ii) in the alternate if this Hon'ble court found just and proper not to terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner then the petitioner express her desire that after the birth of child he/she may be handed over to respondents No. 3 for his/her further care, the State Government shall take all necessary steps in accordance with the applicable provisions of law to facilitate this exercise.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being a rape victim, does not wish to continue with the pregnancy. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner’s family also does not want to continue with the pregnancy. 3. Learned AAG, in compliance of the order dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court, has produced the medical report dated 30.10.2025 along with sonography and other relevant documents. The same are taken on record. 4. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 29.10.2025, respondents had constituted a Medical Board consisting of five experts of Government Bangar Hospital, Pali, to examine the petitioner on 30.10.2025. The Medical Board after examining the petitioner opined that the petitioner’s blood tests reveal hemoglobin level (10.9 gram%) and red blood cell count slightly below normal. It was further opined that if surgical/normal abortion is attempted to terminate the petitioner’s pregnancy, the possibility of serious adverse effects cannot be ruled out. It was also opined that if the petitioner continues her pregnancy with medical advice and proper care, she appears physically capable (weighing 45 kg and height 149 cm) of a normal or cesarean delivery at term. The Medical report dated 30.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder:- 5. As per the Sonography Report dated 30.10.2025, the Medical Board opined that the fetus is well developed. It was further opined by the Medical Board that the petitioner is having gestation age of about 25 weeks and 1 day and she is carrying a viable fetus weighing approximately 812 grams. It was further opined by the Medical Board that the fetus is developing normally, and there appears to be no genetic disability or other physical defect. It was further opined by the Medical Board that the petitioner is having gestation age of about 25 weeks and 1 day and she is carrying a viable fetus weighing approximately 812 grams. It was further opined by the Medical Board that the fetus is developing normally, and there appears to be no genetic disability or other physical defect. The fetus is within the gestational viability period (24 to 28 weeks). Therefore, the unborn fetus is likely to survive after MTP. If the fetus is born through abortion at this stage, it may suffer from physical complications and illnesses, resulting in sudden death. The sonography report dated 30.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder:- 6. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971(‘MTP Act’) and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. Section 3 of the MTP Act is being reproduced as 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 twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the 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; or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (a), where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b), where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. (2A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner whose opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at different gestational age shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. (2B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of he pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of pregnancy by the medical practitioner where such termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board. (2C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case maybe, shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute a Board to be called a Medical Board for the purposes of this Act to exercise such powers and functions as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. (2D) The Medical Board shall consist of the following, namely:— (a) a Gynaecologist; (b) a Paediatrician; (c) a Radiologist or Sonologist; and (d) such other number of members as may be notified in the Official Gazette by the State Government or Union territory, as the case may be.] (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 of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment. (4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age of eighteen years, or, who having attained the age of eighteen years, is a 1 [mentally ill person], shall be terminated except with the consent in writing of her guardian.] (b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman.” 6.1. It is clear from the perusal of Section 3 of the MTP Act that (2) provides for two categories of cases in which a pregnancy can be terminated by a registered medical practitioner subject to the conditions mentioned therein. These categories are based on the length of the pregnancy i.e., a.) upto 20 weeks; b.) more than 20 weeks but up to 24 weeks. However, the pregnancy in the present case has already crossed the period of 24 weeks, thus, the case of petitioner does not fall under (2)(A) and (B). (2B) provides that in a case where termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a medical board, the provisions of (2) relating to the length of the pregnancy shall not apply. Thus, as per (2B) even if the length of pregnancy is of more than 24 weeks, termination of pregnancy may be done if the Medical Board has diagnosed any substantial foetal abnormalities which necessitates such termination of pregnancy. 6.2. Section 5 of the MTP Act is being reproduced as under: “5. Sections 3 and 4 when not to apply.— (1) The provisions of section 4, and so much of the provisions of sub- section (2) of section 3 as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion of not less than two registered medical practitioners, (6 of 10) shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he is of opinion, formed in good faith, that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the termination of pregnancy by a person who is not a registered medical practitioner shall be an offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years under that Code, and that Code shall, to this extent, stand modified. (3) Whoever terminates any pregnancy in a place other than that mentioned in section 4, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years. (3) Whoever terminates any pregnancy in a place other than that mentioned in section 4, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years. (4) Any person being owner of a place which is not approved under clause (b) of section 4 shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, the expression “owner” in relation to a place means any person who is the administrative head or otherwise responsible for the working or maintenance of a hospital or place, by whatever name called, where the pregnancy may be terminated under this Act. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, so much of the provisions of clause (d) of section 2 as relate to the possession, by registered medical practitioner, of experience or training in gynaecology and obstetrics shall not apply.” A bare perusal of Section 5(1) makes it evident that the provisions of Section 3 (2) as relate to the length of the pregnancy and the opinion not less than two registered medical practitioners shall not apply to the termination of a pregnancy by a registered medical practitioner in a case where he, in good faith, forms an opinion that the termination of such pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman. 6.3. This Court also takes into consideration Rule 3A of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (‘MTP Rules’) which is being reproduced as under: “ 3A. 6.3. This Court also takes into consideration Rule 3A of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (‘MTP Rules’) which is being reproduced as under: “ 3A. Powers and functions of Medical Board.—For the purposes of section 3,— (a) the powers of the Medical Board shall be the following, namely:- (i) to allow or deny termination of pregnancy beyond twenty- four weeks of gestation period under sub-section (2B) of the said section only after due consideration and ensuring that the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age and whether the foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; (ii) co-opt other specialists in the Board and ask for any additional investigations if required, for deciding on the termination of pregnancy, (b) the functions of the Medical Board shall be the following, namely: (i) to examine the woman and her reports, who may approach for medical termination of pregnancy under sub- section (2B) of section 3; (ii) provide the opinion of Medical Board in Form D with regard to the termination of pregnancy or rejection of request for termination within three days of receiving the request for medical termination of pregnancy under sub- section (2B) of section 3; (iii) to ensure that the termination procedure, when advised by the Medical Board, is carried out with all safety precautions along with appropriate counselling within five days of the receipt of the request for medical termination of pregnancy under sub-section (2B) of section 3.” Thus, Rule 3A of the MTP Rules provides for the power and functions of Medical Board for the purpose of Section 3 of the MTP Act. Rule 3A(a)(i) provides for the power of the Medical Board to either allow or deny termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks of gestation period under (2B) of the Act, however, such power can be exercised after due consideration and ensuring that: (I) the procedure would be safe for the woman at such gestation age, and (II) when foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life, or (III) if the child is born it may suffer such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped. 6.4. 6.4. Thus, the position of law which emerges from the conjoint reading of Sections 2, 3, 5 of the MTP Act and Rule 3A of the MTP Rules is that the termination of pregnancy can be allowed in cases where the gestation period/pregnancy has crossed the mark of 24 weeks, if: (i) There is diagnosis of any substantial foetal abnormalities by a Medical Board or that the foetal malformation has substantial risk of it being incompatible with life and the procedure would be safe for the woman at that gestation age, or (ii) The registered medical practitioner, in good faith, forms an opinion that termination of pregnancy is immediately necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman/or of grave injury to the mental or physical health. 7. In the present case, the Medical Board has opined that the petitioner is pregnant and fetus is well developed, having the gestation age of 25 weeks and 1 day. The report of the Medical Board does not indicate any foetal abnormality. Further, the Medical board has also opined that the petitioner is stable at present but her hemoglobin and red blood cells are on a lesser side. Further the Medical Board has in clear terms opined that premature delivery of the fetus at this stage of pregnancy by premature induction of labour is not medically advisable as it may have adverse affects on the life and health of both the petitioner and the fetus. Thus, upon perusal of the report submitted by the Medical Board, it is clear that the case of the petitioner does not fall under the provisions of law which have been enumerated in the preceding paragraph of this judgment so as to allow termination of pregnancy, which is beyond 24 weeks. 8. Therefore, in view of the above, this Court is not inclined to give directions for termination of the pregnancy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off with the following directions: (i) The respondents are directed to provide the petitioner all necessary care, nutritious food and medical attendance before and after delivery. (ii) The Chief Medical & Health Officer, District, Pali, is directed to ensure that all medical facilities are made available to the petitioner before and after delivery, without payment of any fee, charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery takes place in a safe environment. (ii) The Chief Medical & Health Officer, District, Pali, is directed to ensure that all medical facilities are made available to the petitioner before and after delivery, without payment of any fee, charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery takes place in a safe environment. (iii) The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained at all stages and her identity shall not be disclosed in the course of hospitalization, treatment and admission. (iv) If the petitioner or her parents so wish, the child, on birth, may be handed over to the Child Welfare Committee of Pali and the petitioner and her parents shall fulfill all necessary documentation and all formalities as may be so required under the law for handing over custody of the child to the Child Welfare Committee. (v) The Child Welfare Committee, Pali, shall take care of all the needs and facilities of the child. (vi) The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) as well as District Legal services Authority (DLSA), Pali are directed to pay suitable amount of compensation to the petitioner who is a victim in terms of the provisions contained under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 within a period of ‘three months’ from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the amount of compensation be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of the victim for a period of two years. 9. Copy of this order be provided to the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State respondents for necessary compliance. Let the copy of this order be also sent to Member Secretary, RSLSA and Secretary, DLSA, for necessary compliance.