Court permits medical termination of 27-week pregnancy for minor rape victim citing grave mental trauma.

The petitioner, a 16-year-old minor represented by her mother, sought the termination of her pregnancy, which was approximately 26 weeks along.

The minor alleged she was a victim of sexual assault, and an FIR was registered on February 22, 2026.

While the relationship appeared consensual at first glance, the minor alleged she was threatened by the offender.

Following a court order dated March 9, 2026, a Medical Board at DDU Hospital examined the petitioner and concluded she was physically and mentally fit to undergo the procedure, despite the gestation period exceeding the statutory limit.

Both the minor and her mother remained adamant about the termination during an in-chamber interaction with the Court.

The Court primarily applied Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, specifically Explanation 2, which mandates a legal presumption that pregnancy caused by rape constitutes a "grave injury" to the mental health of the woman.

The Court relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21 regarding reproductive autonomy as established in *Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn.*

The Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction as seen in precedents like *A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra* and *Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka*, where terminations were allowed beyond 24-26 weeks for rape victims to prevent severe trauma.

The Court reasoned that although the MTP Act generally prohibits termination beyond 24 weeks unless fetal abnormalities are present, the constitutional courts possess the power to safeguard a victim’s mental and physical health.

By interacting with the minor, the Court confirmed her resolve and the resulting "grave injury" to her mental health caused by the assault.

The Court found the Medical Board's report favorable, noting the minor was fit for the procedure and that the "anguish" faced by a 16-year-old victim falls squarely within the protective scope of the Act.

It evaluated the "reasonably foreseeable environment" of the minor as per Section 3(3) of the MTP Act, concluding that forcing her to carry the pregnancy would violate her bodily autonomy and right to self-determination under Article 21.

The Court directed DDU Hospital to admit the petitioner immediately and perform the termination procedure.

Specific orders were issued to: (i) preserve fetal tissue for DNA/investigative purposes; (ii) ensure the State bears all medical expenses; and (iii) provide for the child's welfare/adoption through the Child Welfare Committee should the baby be born alive.

The petition was disposed of with a direction for *dasti* service to ensure immediate compliance.