Objective: To assess whether, in those requiring ongoing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin. Design: Open-label, superiority randomised trial Setting: Government hospitals in India Population: Women induced with oral misoprostol for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and requiring ongoing induction after membrane rupture Methods: Participants received misoprostol (25mcg orally two hourly) or titrated oxytocin through an infusion pump. Main Outcome Measure: Caesarean birth Results: 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced by the use of misoprostol (misoprostol 32.3% vs oxytocin 27.3%; adjusted odds ratio 1.226 (95% CI 0.81-1.85, p=0.33)). There were no differences in rates of hyperstimulation, fetal heart rate abnormalities, or maternal side effects, although the geometric mean time from randomisation to birth was 31 minutes longer with misoprostol. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared to 3 in the oxytocin arm. Women’s acceptability ratings were high in both study groups. Conclusion: Following cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of ongoing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates compared to oxytocin. The method, however, was safe for both mother and baby.