Minor V Thr Grand Mother M vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi And Anr

Court
Delhi High Court

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010512382026
+ W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026
MINOR V THR GRAND MOTHER M .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar,
Advocate (DHCLSC) along
with Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Mr.
Pranjal Shekhar and Ms.
Diptasree Bag, Advocates.
versus

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for
R-1/State along with SI Maina,
PS Khayala through video-
conferencing.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Writ Petition, filed on behalf of Minor „V‟, through
her grand-mother M, under Article 226, read with Article 21 of the
1
Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks, inter alia , directions to
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to medically terminate the pregnancy of the
2
Minor Girl ‘V’ , in terms of Section 3(2) of the Medical
3
Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 .
2. By way of the present Petition, the intervention of this Court

1
Constitution
2
Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 1 of 9

has been sought qua the termination of pregnancy of the Petitioner,
since the current gestational period of the Petitioner is stated to be
beyond the permissible limits under the MTP Act.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the
outset, submits that the Petitioner is a minor and is victim of rape, and
is presently at approximately 29 weeks of gestation of pregnancy,
conceived from the said rape. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is
presently admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi for
care and supervision of the said pregnancy.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that both, the
Petitioner as well as her grand-mother, are desirous of terminating this
pregnancy, as its continuation would cause grave mental injury and
psychological trauma to the Petitioner, having regard to her tender age
and the circumstances in which the pregnancy was conceived.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that the
Petitioner seeks to invoke her „Right to Life‟ , as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution, for seeking the medical termination of
her pregnancy. It is contended that rejection of the said relief would
expose the minor Petitioner to grave mental injury and psychological
trauma.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties draw the
attention of this Court to the Report of the Medical Board for
4
Pregnancy Termination Beyond 24 weeks , prepared by the Medical
5
Board constituted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi ,

3
MTP Act
4
Report of the Medical Board
5
Medical Board
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 2 of 9

to submit that the Medical Board, constituted under the MTP Act, has
found the Petitioner to be physically fit for undergoing the procedure
for medical termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel for the
Respondent, in view of the same, submits that appropriate directions
may be passed, as sought for, keeping in view the Report of the
Medical Board and the prevalent position of law.
7. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the parties by
the learned counsel appearing on their behalf respectively.
ANALYSIS:
8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material
available on record, including the Report of the Medical Board.
9. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court
deems it apposite to take note of various decisions of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court, as also this Court, whereby medical termination of
pregnancy, even beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks, as stipulated
in the MTP Act, was permitted.
6

10. In S vs. The Union of India & Ors. , the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court allowed medical termination of pregnancy wherein the
gestational period of pregnancy of the Petitioner therein was 28
weeks. It was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
or Article 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Courts are not
constrained by the statutory limitations prescribed under the MTP Act
and must primarily consider the welfare, dignity, bodily integrity and
reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman, particularly, in cases
involving minors and unwanted pregnancies.

6
2026 INSC 446
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 3 of 9

11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court recognised that reproductive
choice forms an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that no woman, much
less a minor rape survivor, can be compelled to carry an unwanted
pregnancy to full term against her wishes, merely because the
statutory gestational limit has been crossed.
12. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has further emphasised that in
cases of unwanted pregnancy, the focus must remain on the welfare
and autonomy of the pregnant woman rather than the interests of the
unborn child. The absence of foetal abnormality, the advancement of
gestational age, or the absence of a diagnosed psychiatric disorder
cannot by themselves constitute grounds to deny termination. The
relevant portions of the decision rendered in S (Supra) are reproduced
as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
11. The Court must, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226
or Article 32 of the Constitution of India, therefore, prioritize the
best interests of the minor mother-to- be in the present case, over
the procedural and statutory limitations under the MTP Act. If the
interest and welfare of the mother-to-be are to be given due
consideration, her reproductive autonomy must be accorded the
highest importance. This is particularly having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.
11.1 The right to make decisions concerning one’s body,
particularly in matters of reproduction, is an integral facet of
personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. This right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing
unreasonable restrictions, especially in cases involving minors
and unwanted pregnancies, such as in the instant case.
11.2 No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor
child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will.
Such compulsion would not only disregard her decisional
autonomy but could also inflict grave mental, emotional and
physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth. In these
circumstances, denying the relief sought would compel the minor
to endure irreversible consequences. Such an approach would be
contrary to the constitutional ethos and the settled principles
recognizing reproductive choice as a fundamental right. What is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 4 of 9

of relevance is the choice of the pregnant woman rather than the
interest of an unborn child. It is easy to say that if the pregnant
woman is not interested in raising the child, she may give away
the child in adoption and therefore must be compelled into giving
birth to the child. However, that cannot be the correct approach,
particularly, in cases where the child to be born is unwanted. In
such a situation, directing the pregnant woman to give birth to
the child against her wishes and to forcefully continue her
pregnancy would negate the welfare of the pregnant woman and
make it subordinate to the child yet to be born.
11.3 We find that in cases of unwanted pregnancy, often the
decision to terminate is made beyond the statutory period
prescribed under the MTP Act owing to several reasons. It is under
such circumstances that Constitutional Courts must weigh the
circumstances in which a case in relation to the welfare of the
pregnant woman has to be considered rather than the child to be
born. In fact, under certain grounds, the MTP Act itself permits
termination of pregnancy which is therefore recognised in law. The
Constitutional Court is approached only when the statutory remedy
is not available to a party. Can the Constitutional Court then say
that since the statutory remedy is not available, no constitutional
remedy would be available. That, in our view, cannot be the
approach. A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a
constitutional remedy. The statute codifies a part of the
constitutional remedy. If a case is not covered within the four
corners of a statute then, can the constitutional relief be also
denied? In our view, in such circumstances, the Constitutional
Court ought to weigh all facts and circumstances from the lens of
the party who intends to terminate the pregnancy and is willing to
undertake the medical risk, rather than compelling her to
complete the pregnancy term and give birth to an unwanted
child. If the pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is
compelled to continue such a pregnancy, then the constitutional
rights of the pregnant woman would be breached.
11.4 Further, if the Constitutional Court adopts the view that even
an unwanted pregnancy must be continued, then instead of
approaching the Court for permission, pregnant women would visit
illegal abortion centres and secretly undergo termination of such
pregnancies which would only make such women more vulnerable
and expose them to more dangerous procedures. It is under such
considerations that a Constitutional Court must decide what is best
in the interest of the pregnant woman, particularly, when the
pregnancy is unwanted as in the present case.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis supplied)

13. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has allowed medical termination of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 5 of 9

pregnancy beyond the gestation period of 24 weeks on various other
occasions, inter alia , in Venkatalakshmi vs. The State of Karnataka
7
& Ors. , where the gestational period of the Petitioner therein was 26
weeks, the medical termination of pregnancy was allowed.

14. Likewise, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in Minor R Thr.
8
Mother H vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr , allowed the medical
termination of pregnancy, where the gestational period was 24 weeks
and 5 days. This Court took note of the fact that termination of
pregnancy where a minor is a victim of rape, cannot be reduced
merely to be defined as right of a woman sexually assaulted, but also
to be recognized as a human right, as it affects the dignified existence
of a victim, if the same is not permitted. Thus, it was held that it
would not be appropriate to expect the minor rape victim to take the
burden of giving birth and raising a child, especially in a situation,
where she herself is passing through the age of adolescence.
15. This Court has, time and again, granted the permission for
medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory period of 24
weeks, in terms of the MTP Act. The Co-ordinate Benches of this
9
Court, inter alia , in Minor S (Thr. Father B) vs. State & Anr. ,
Minor S through her guardian B vs. State Government of NCT of
10 11
Delhi and Mrs. X Versus GNCTD & Anr. , allowed the medical
termination of pregnancy, where the gestational period of such
pregnancies exceeded 27 weeks, 30 weeks and 33 weeks, respectively.
16. Having considered the aforesaid judicial precedents, it emerges

7
2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156
8
2023 SCC OnLine Del 383
9
2025: DHC: 2710
10
W.P.(Crl) 2763/2026 vide Order dated 08th September, 2026
11
2022/DHC/005344
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 6 of 9

that the question of medical termination of pregnancy cannot be
merely determined or restricted by the statutory period of 24 weeks,
but must be examined in the context of the facts and circumstances of
each case, including the age and the reason of such pregnancy, the
medical opinion placed on record, and the rights and the interest of the
pregnant woman. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position
and the judicial precedents that this Court proceeds to examine the
present case.
17. This Court takes note of the fact that the Petitioner is a minor
girl of approximately 17 years, and the pregnancy is stated to be
unwanted and having been conceived from a rape, against which a
FIR has already been registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi. The
gestation period of the said pregnancy exceeds 29 weeks, as per the
report of the Medical Board.
18. This Court also takes note of the opinion expressed in the
Report of the Medical Board placed on record, wherein it has been
expressly opined by the doctors of the Medical Board that “Minor V is
medically & psychologically fit for termination of pregnancy” .
19. Having regard to the facts and circumstance of the present case,
and in light of the opinion of the Medical Board that the Petitioner,
i.e., the minor victim, is medically fit to undergo the procedure for
termination of pregnancy, the present Petition is allowed.
DECISION :
20. Accordingly, the medical termination of pregnancy of the
Petitioner is permitted, in the best interest of the minor Petitioner,
subject to the safeguards and directions as set out below:
I. The procedure for termination of pregnancy shall be carried out
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 7 of 9

by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the
provisions of the MTP Act and the relevant Rules and
Regulations and Guidelines prescribed for the aforesaid
purpose.

II. Complete record of such procedure, performed upon the minor
for the purpose of termination of said pregnancy, shall be
maintained by the Medical Board.
III. Respondent No. 2, i.e. , Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New
Delhi, is directed to preserve the tissue of the foetus for the
purposes of DNA testing, which would be required with
reference to the criminal case which stands registered.
IV. Respondent No. 1, i.e. , the State shall bear all the expenses
necessary for the termination of the pregnancy of the minor in
question and her stay at the hospital during such period. The
expenditure towards post-operative period shall also be borne
by the State.
V. In case the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, Deen
Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, in conjunction with the
State Authorities, would ensure that medical support, as well as
every possible and feasible assistance is offered to such child,
and the child shall be kept in an incubator. Intimation in this
regard shall be given to the concerned Child Welfare
Committee (“CWC”), and as and when so required, further
directions be sought from CWC.
VI. In that case, as per wish of minor and her family, such child be
given in adoption as per prescribed procedure.
VII. The identity of the Petitioner/minor survivor shall be strictly
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 8 of 9

protected. The respondent authorities, the hospital, the Medical
Board and all other persons associated with the proceeding shall
ensure that no particulars capable of identifying her, including
her name, address, photographs and medical records, are
disclosed, save to the extent authorised or required by law.

21. A copy of this Order be sent forthwith to the SHO, Police
Station Khyala, Delhi and to the Investigating Office (I.O.), who is
stated to be Sub-Inspector Ms. Maina, Police Station Khyala, Delhi.
22. The IO is directed to communicate this Order to the concerned
Department and the Medical Officer(s) of Deen Dayal Upadhyay
Hospital, New Delhi, including Dr. Sunita Seth (Mob. No.
9718990153), who is stated to be handing the medical case and
pregnancy of the Petitioner.

23. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.
24. A copy of this Order be given Dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 24, 2026/tk/DJ

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:16:51
W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026 Page 9 of 9