Minor R (Thr. Her Father R) vs State Nct Of Delhi And Anr

$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 24 June, 2026
+ W.P.(CRL) 1804/2026
MINOR R (THR. HER FATHER R) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, (DHCLSC)
with Mr. Pranjal S., Adv.
(Mob. 9899866844)
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. ( ORAL):
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226, read with
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”), as well as Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), for
issuance of writ of mandamus or any other writs, directing respondent nos. 1
and 2 to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present
petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is a minor girl of 15 years of
age, through her father.
3. He further submits that the petitioner is a victim of rape, and is
currently at an approximate 26-28 weeks gestational period. The petitioner,
as well as her father, wish to terminate the pregnancy, since the continuation
of the same would result in grave mental injury to the petitioner.
4. Thus, by way of the present petition, the intervention of this Court has
been sought for termination of pregnancy of the petitioner, since the current
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 1 of 9

gestational age of the petitioner is beyond the permissible limits under the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”), as amended by
the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
invoking her “Right to Life” as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution, for conducting the medical termination of her pregnancy, as
rejection of the said request would cause great mental injury to the
petitioner, who is a victim of rape.
6. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the report issued by the All
th
India Institute of Medical Sciences (“AIIMS”), New Delhi dated 19 June,
2026, which is reproduced as under:
“
"
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 2 of 9

th
7. Perusal of the aforesaid report dated 19 June, 2026 shows that the
Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi conducted a thorough clinical
assessment of the petitioner, including obstetric ultrasound, psychiatric and
psychological evaluation. After the clinical assessment, the Medical Board
of AIIMS, New Delhi has clearly given its opinion that the termination of
pregnancy can be allowed as continuation of the pregnancy is likely to have
adverse psychological impact on the minor petitioner. Further, the petitioner
has been declared to be medically fit to undergo the procedure of medial
termination of pregnancy.
8. On a pointed query by this Court, learned counsel appearing for the
Government of NCT of Delhi (“GNCTD”) submits that in view of the clear
report by AIIMS, New Delhi, they have no objection if the procedure for
medical termination of pregnancy is carried out upon the petitioner.
9. None appears for respondent no. 2, i.e., AIIMS, New Delhi when the
matter is called out.
10. However, the respondent no.1/GNCTD submits that necessary order
can be passed by this Court, since the report of the Medical Board of the
AIIMS, New Delhi is already before this Court.
11. At this stage, reference is made to the decision in the case of Minor J
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 3 of 9

Thr Mother P Versus State and Another, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 3959 ,
wherein, the Court permitted medical termination of pregnancy of a minor,
who was a victim of sexual assault, having gestational period of around 26
weeks. The relevant portions of the said decision read as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
10. MTP Act does not provide for termination of pregnancy over the
gestational age 24 weeks, except where there is detection of any
substantial fetal abnormality and, therefore, the minor is compelled
to file the present petition, through her mother.
11. There is no qualm with respect to the fact that the extraordinary
jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be invoked in such a
situation and wherever found so permissible, the pregnancy can be
directed to be terminated.
12. This Court in S v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3863 has observed
as under:
“…….
……….
27. This position was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in case of A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra: Civil
Appeal No. 5194 of 2024, wherein the Court had allowed
termination of pregnancy of more than 29 weeks being carried
by a rape victim. Prior thereto also, in case
of Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnatka: Civil Appeal No.
15378 of 2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had permitted
termination of a pregnancy at 26 weeks on the basis of severe
mental trauma caused by rape.
28. This Court, including this Bench, has passed similar
directions in other similar cases, where continuation of
pregnancy beyond 24 weeks posed serious risks to the mental
or physical health of the woman, especially in cases arising
from sexual assault.
13. This Court has also gone through Venkatalakshmi v. State of
Karnatka, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156 wherein also, the minor was
subjected to a sexual assault and on her medical examination and
investigation, she was found to be of 26 weeks gestation with mild
anaemia and the Supreme Court, keeping in mind the overall facts
of the matter and the fact that such minor was a victim of rape,
directed termination of pregnancy, while also directing that every
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 4 of 9

safety aspect would be kept in mind while terminating such
pregnancy.
xxx xxx xxx
20. This Court very well comprehends and understands the grave
mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of a minor, on
account of sexual assault in question. Reference be also made
to C v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5617 wherein Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:
“16. The Petitioner's plea is also rooted in her fundamental
rights under Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9
SCC 1 : (2009) 3 SCC (Civ) 570, (2023) 9 SCC
433 Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
personal liberty. This liberty encompasses the right to make
reproductive choices, including the termination of pregnancy
under conditions that pose a risk to the woman's mental health
and well-being. The Supreme Court of India has affirmed
these rights, emphasizing the importance of considering the
woman's current health, her life's conditions, and her future
well-being while making such decisions. Therefore, it is clear
that a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy and right of self-
determination is an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Perusal of the aforesaid decision makes it clear that although the MTP
Act does not provide for termination of pregnancy over the gestational age
24 weeks, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be
invoked for termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, as in such cases,
grave mental injury and trauma is inflicted upon the mind of the minor.
th
13. This Court also deems it apposite to refer to the order dated 24 April,
2026, passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 14454/2026 , titled as “S
Versus The Union of India & Ors.” , relevant portions of which, read as
under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 5 of 9

“xxx xxx xxx
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 6 of 9

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
13. Further, the mental health of a pregnant woman carrying an
unwanted pregnancy also must be borne in mind and given its due
importance. If she is forced to continue her pregnancy and give
birth the consequences would be adverse. An unwanted pregnancy
and the effect thereof on the mindset of such a pregnant woman will
also have a bearing on the child to be born. The decision not to
continue a pregnancy and to seek termination with all attendant
risks must be respected rather than compelling such a pregnant
woman to continue such a pregnancy.
14. We may usefully refer to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this
Court in X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1321, wherein it has been authoritatively held that a
woman’s right to reproductive autonomy includes the right to
choose whether and when to have children, the number of children
to have, and the right to access safe and legal abortion and
reproductive healthcare. This Court recognized that the decision to
continue or terminate a pregnancy arises out of complex and deeply
personal circumstances, which only the woman herself is best placed
to evaluate. Reproductive autonomy, therefore, necessarily entails
that every pregnant woman has the intrinsic right to decide whether
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 7 of 9

to undergo an abortion . Importantly, this Court also observed that a
mere clinical description of pregnancy cannot capture the profound
physical and psychological consequences of forcing a woman to carry
an unwanted pregnancy to term. Consequently, the decision to either
continue or terminate a pregnancy is firmly rooted in the woman’s
right to bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, which are integral
facets of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
14.1 In the context of the present case, we may refer to the decision
of A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal
No.827 of 2026, where, on similar facts, this Court had allowed
medical termination of pregnancy of 30 weeks of a minor girl. In
that case too, the pregnancy in question arose out of a consensual
relationship, and much like the present case, the continuation of the
pregnancy was stated to be traumatic both mentally as well as
physically to the minor girl as it was an unwanted pregnancy.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, in
view of the desire of the minor as well as her father to terminate the
pregnancy and the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS, New Delhi in
this regard, the prayer in the petition to medically terminate the pregnancy of
the petitioner is allowed, with the following directions:
I. The petitioner is permitted to get herself admitted at AIIMS, New
Delhi on the strength of the present order for medical termination of
her pregnancy.
II. Let the procedure for termination of pregnancy be carried out by a
team of competent doctors in accordance with the provisions of MTP
Act and the relevant Rules and Regulations and Guidelines prescribed
for the aforesaid purpose.
III. Complete record of such procedure, performed upon the minor for the
purpose of termination of said pregnancy, shall be maintained by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 8 of 9

Medical Board.
IV. Respondent no. 2, i.e., AIIMS, 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.
V. Needless to say, respondent no. 2, i.e., GNCTD 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.
VI. In case the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, 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.
VII. In that case, as per wish of minor and her father, such child be given
in adoption as per prescribed procedure.
15. With the aforesaid directions the present petition stands disposed of.
16. Order Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 24, 2026/JYH
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARIOM SHARMA
Signing Date:24.06.2026
21:20:48
Page 9 of 9