Madurai Bench Permits MTP, Orders DNA Preservation of Foetal Tissue for Ongoing Criminal Investigation
The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench allowed a pregnant woman's termination plea, directed DNA preservation of foetal tissue for a Section 69 BNS investigation, and disposed of the original police-harassment writ.
What began as a writ petition by a final-year B.Tech student alleging police coercion ended, on 15 June 2026, with the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granting a pregnant woman permission to terminate her approximately fifteen-week pregnancy and directing the preservation of foetal tissue as forensic evidence in a parallel criminal case. Justice L. Victoria Gowri, sitting singly, allowed the miscellaneous petition filed by the third respondent — the pregnant woman — under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, holding that her informed, voluntary decision engaged the reproductive autonomy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court simultaneously directed DNA profiling of the preserved biological material within sixty days, in aid of the investigation into Crime No. 51 of 2026 registered under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
How the Writ Petition Reached This Point
The petitioner, K. Surya, is a final-year B.Tech student. The third respondent, a woman known to his family, lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District, alleging that he had promised to marry her and then declined.
Surya alleged that on the strength of that complaint, the police compelled him to appear at the station, made him and the third respondent stand before a temple, garlanded them, and photographed the occasion in a manner designed to create the impression of a marriage. Fearing further coercive action, he filed W.P.Crl.(MD) No. 2497 of 2026 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent — the Inspector of Police — not to harass him by compelling him to lead a matrimonial life with the third respondent.
When the matter was listed for admission on 29 April 2026, the court directed the personal appearance of the petitioner. Both the petitioner and the third respondent appeared on 4 June 2026. The court conducted an in-camera interaction, first separately and then jointly.
During that interaction, the third respondent disclosed that she was carrying a pregnancy allegedly conceived during her relationship with the petitioner. Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner categorically expressed his unwillingness to marry her or to lead a matrimonial life with her. The court recorded that stand and directed the second respondent police to conduct further enquiry.
On 5 June 2026, the third respondent filed W.M.P.(Crl.)(MD) No. 731 of 2026 seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy. The court suo motu impleaded the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, as the fourth respondent and directed a comprehensive medical examination.
Medical Condition and the Hospital's Report
The third respondent was admitted to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital pursuant to the court's direction. Medical examination revealed that she was approximately fifteen weeks pregnant. She was also found to be suffering from severe anaemia, with a haemoglobin level of 7.5 g/dL at admission.
A multidisciplinary team comprising specialists in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, General Medicine, Anaesthesiology, Psychiatry, Cardiology and Radiology monitored her continuously. Blood transfusions, vitamin supplementation and corrective treatment were administered. Subsequent reports showed the haemoglobin level rising progressively to 9.1 g/dL and then to 11 g/dL. The Additional Advocate General, on instructions from the fourth respondent, informed the court that the haemoglobin level had reached approximately 12 g/dL and that the third respondent was medically fit to undergo the procedure.
The Third Respondent's Affidavit and Her Stated Choice
The third respondent filed a detailed affidavit. She stated that she and the petitioner were in a consensual romantic relationship, that he had promised marriage, and that both had engaged in a consensual physical relationship. Upon becoming pregnant, she stated, the petitioner gradually distanced himself and ultimately refused to continue the relationship.
She asserted before the court that she did not wish to continue the pregnancy and that compelling her to do so would expose her to severe emotional, social and psychological hardship. She stated that she was exercising her reproductive choice and had consciously decided that termination was in her best interests.
The Legal Framework the Court Applied
Justice Victoria Gowri set out the legal position by reference to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended, describing its legislative scheme as founded upon the principles of bodily autonomy, reproductive freedom, dignity and informed choice of the pregnant woman.
The court drew on three Supreme Court decisions. In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, (2023) 14 SCC 615, the Supreme Court held that reproductive choice forms an inseparable component of personal liberty, bodily integrity and decisional autonomy. The court quoted the proposition that “every woman is entitled to make reproductive choices free from coercion.” In Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 462, the Supreme Court emphasised that the life and health of the pregnant woman constitute paramount considerations. In Mamta Verma v. Union of India, (2018) 14 SCC 289, the Supreme Court permitted medical termination after considering medical opinion and the welfare of the pregnant woman.
The court identified the consistent thread across those decisions: the autonomy, dignity, physical health and mental well-being of the woman must be placed at the centre of judicial consideration.
The Court's Analysis
Justice Victoria Gowri noted that the third respondent is a major woman aged approximately twenty-three years. There was no material before the court suggesting that her request was involuntary or the product of coercion. The court had the benefit of interacting with her in person and found that she clearly and unequivocally expressed her desire not to continue the pregnancy.
The court was careful to delineate what it was not deciding. It was not adjudicating the truthfulness of the allegations exchanged between the petitioner and the third respondent about the nature of their relationship. It was not deciding questions of criminal liability, since those issues were already the subject of investigation in Crime No. 51 of 2026. The sole question before it was the right of the third respondent to make decisions regarding her own body and reproductive future.
On the medical side, the court found that although the third respondent had initially suffered from severe anaemia, corrective treatment had successfully stabilised her condition. The fourth respondent had specifically stated that medical termination could be undertaken safely in accordance with accepted protocols. The opinion of the multidisciplinary team left no room for doubt regarding the feasibility of the procedure.
The court held that compelling the third respondent to continue an unwanted pregnancy despite her informed decision would amount to a direct intrusion into her bodily autonomy and decisional freedom, and that the constitutional guarantee under Article 21 does not permit such an outcome.
On the original writ petition, the court noted that on 4 June 2026 the second respondent police had registered Crime No. 51 of 2026 under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the petitioner had been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Once a regular criminal case had been registered and investigation had commenced, the apprehension of future police coercion that had originally animated the writ petition lost its significance. The court held that the legality of the FIR, investigation, arrest or remand were matters to be challenged before the competent forum in accordance with law and could not be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
The DNA Preservation Direction
A distinctive feature of the order is the court's direction concerning the biological material arising from the termination procedure. The court observed that since Crime No. 51 of 2026 was under active investigation, the foetal tissue and other biological samples could constitute relevant evidence for a fair and effective investigation.
The court directed the Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, to ensure that appropriate foetal tissue and such other biological samples as may be medically and scientifically required are carefully preserved at the time of the procedure, in accordance with established medical protocols. Immediately upon collection, the samples are to be handed over under proper seal, label and documentation to the Investigating Officer, with complete chain of custody maintained.
The Investigating Officer is directed to forward the preserved samples to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Tirunelveli, for DNA profiling and such other forensic examination as may be necessary. The Investigating Officer is also directed to collect reference biological samples from the petitioner and from the third respondent, following the procedure under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and other applicable provisions, for scientific comparison.
The Forensic Science Laboratory is directed to conduct DNA analysis and submit its report to the jurisdictional court within sixty days of receipt of a copy of the order, subject to the condition and viability of the samples received.
The court made clear that it had expressed no opinion whatsoever on the paternity of the foetus or the merits of the criminal case, and that all such issues are to be decided independently by the competent court on the basis of evidence and in accordance with law.
Order
W.M.P.(Crl.)(MD) No. 731 of 2026, the miscellaneous petition seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy, was allowed. The Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, was permitted and directed to undertake medical termination of pregnancy of the third respondent in accordance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended.
Prior to the procedure, the treating team is required to obtain informed written consent from the third respondent and complete all statutory and medical formalities. The procedure is to be carried out by qualified specialists in a duly approved medical institution under continuous supervision. The fourth respondent is directed to ensure availability of blood transfusion facilities, emergency care facilities and post-procedure monitoring. Psychiatric, psychological and post-procedure counselling support is also to be extended to the third respondent.
Insofar as the writ petition itself is concerned, no further orders were required in view of the registration of Crime No. 51 of 2026. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law. The writ petition was disposed of on 15 June 2026.