Delhi HC Allows 29-Week Pregnancy Termination For Minor Rape Survivor After Medical Board Finds Her Fit

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court could permit termination of a pregnancy beyond the 24-week limit under the MTP Act, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, having regard to the circumstances and rights of the minor rape survivor.

The court held

The petition was allowed, and termination was permitted subject to safeguards: the procedure was to be performed by competent doctors in accordance with applicable law; the procedure’s records were to be maintained; foetal tissue was to be preserved for DNA testing in the criminal case; and the State was to bear the costs of the procedure, hospital stay, and post-operative care.

It also directed

If the child were born alive, the hospital and State authorities were directed to provide medical support, keep the child in an incubator, and notify the Child Welfare Committee; adoption was to follow the prescribed procedure in accordance with the wishes of the minor and her family.

The petitioner’s identity was ordered to remain protected, and the order was directed to be communicated to the police and hospital authorities.

01Facts

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of a minor girl, through her grandmother, seeking termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act).

¶ 1

The petitioner, approximately 17 years old, was about 29 weeks pregnant following rape; an FIR had been registered, and she was admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.

¶ 3, 17

The petitioner and her grandmother sought termination, citing the psychological trauma and mental injury associated with continuing the pregnancy.

¶ 4

The hospital Medical Board reported that the petitioner was medically and psychologically fit for termination.

¶ 6, 18

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court could permit termination of a pregnancy beyond the 24-week limit under the MTP Act, in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, having regard to the circumstances and rights of the minor rape survivor.

¶ 9–16

ii.2. Whether, in view of the Medical Board’s opinion and the petitioner’s circumstances, termination should be permitted and, if so, subject to what safeguards.

¶ 17–20

03Law Applied

The Court considered the MTP Act, including Section 3(2), which provides the statutory framework for termination of pregnancy, and held that the 24-week statutory limit does not, by itself, foreclose relief by a Constitutional Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶ 1, 10, 16

It applied Article 21 principles recognising reproductive choice, bodily integrity, privacy, dignity, and personal liberty, and relied on the proposition that a Constitutional Court may grant a constitutional remedy where the statutory remedy is unavailable.

¶ 10–12

The Court followed S v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 446, on prioritising the welfare and reproductive autonomy of a pregnant woman, particularly a minor rape survivor, over statutory gestational limits; it also referred to Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156, and Minor R Thr. Mother H v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383, among other decisions permitting termination beyond 24 weeks in appropriate cases.

¶ 10–15

The Court treated the Medical Board’s assessment and the individual circumstances as relevant to the decision.

¶ 16–18

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 3

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the petitioner was a minor, that her pregnancy resulted from rape and was unwanted, and that continuation would cause grave psychological trauma.

¶ 4, 17

The Medical Board had found her medically and psychologically fit for termination.

¶ 18

Applying the constitutional principles and precedents, the Court held that the statutory 24-week limit did not prevent it from granting relief in these circumstances; the petitioner’s welfare and reproductive autonomy warranted permission to terminate the pregnancy.

¶ 10–12, 16–19