Constitutional Courts may permit medical termination of pregnancy beyond statutory limits to prevent grave mental injury.

The petitioner, a 15-year-old minor represented by her father, is a victim of rape who sought the medical termination of her pregnancy

At the time of filing, the petitioner was at an approximate gestational period of 26–28 weeks

Since this exceeded the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution

A Medical Board at AIIMS, New Delhi, evaluated the petitioner and concluded that continuing the pregnancy would have an adverse psychological impact on the minor and that she was medically fit for the procedure

1. Whether a minor rape victim can be permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks as prescribed under the MTP Act

2. Whether the "Right to Life" and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution protect the choice of a minor to terminate an unwanted pregnancy resulting from sexual assault

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses the right to reproductive choice and bodily autonomy as facets of personal liberty

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, noting that while the Act restricts abortions beyond 24 weeks, Constitutional Courts may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in cases of grave mental injury

The court relied on S v. State (2025) and Minor J v. State (2026) to establish that rape victims face exceptional trauma

The court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in S v. The Union of India & Ors. (2026), which held that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right and that the pregnant woman’s choice takes precedence over the interests of the unborn child in cases of unwanted pregnancy

The court reasoned that compelling a minor to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will constitutes a violation of her decisional autonomy and inflicts "grave mental, emotional and physical trauma"

It emphasized that a lack of a statutory remedy under the MTP Act does not bar a constitutional remedy under Article 21

Applying the AIIMS Medical Board report, the court found that the "grave mental injury" to the 15-year-old rape victim outweighed the gestational age of the fetus

The court adopted a "pro-choice" lens, noting that forcing the continuation of pregnancy would negate the welfare of the petitioner and potentially drive women toward dangerous, illegal abortion centers

The court concluded that the petitioner's right to bodily integrity and the psychological necessity of the procedure justified the intervention

It ordered AIIMS to perform the procedure immediately, preserve the fetal tissue for DNA evidence for the pending criminal case, and ensured that the State (GNCTD) would bear all medical and post-operative expenses

The holding established that under Article 21, a minor rape victim’s right to reproductive autonomy permits termination even beyond the 24-week statutory limit if continuing the pregnancy poses a risk to her mental health

If the child is born alive, the court directed AIIMS to provide life support and facilitate adoption through the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) as per the petitioner's wishes