Delhi High Court permits termination of 31-week pregnancy for minor rape survivor, with safeguards if baby is born alive

The petitioner, a 16-year-old minor represented by her mother, sought medical termination of a pregnancy resulting from rape.

At approximately 31 weeks’ gestation, she and her mother wished to terminate the pregnancy, stating that its continuation would cause grave mental injury to the petitioner.

The Medical Board at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital found her physically fit for termination but reported that the baby was likely to be born alive.

The petitioner had been admitted to the hospital, and her mother confirmed that the family wished to proceed

Whether the Court could permit termination of the minor’s pregnancy at approximately 31 weeks, beyond the statutory gestational limits under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Whether termination should be permitted in light of the minor’s expressed wishes, the circumstances of the pregnancy, and the Medical Board’s opinion that she was physically fit for the procedure

The Court invoked Articles 226 and 21 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, alongside the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended in 2021.

Relying principally on S v. Union of India & Ors., SLP (C) No. 14454/2026, judgment dated 24 April 2026, the Court applied the principle that constitutional courts exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 are not confined to the statutory gestational limits of the MTP Act and must give primary consideration to the pregnant person’s welfare, dignity, bodily integrity, and reproductive autonomy, particularly where the pregnant person is a minor and the pregnancy is unwanted.

The Court also referred to decisions permitting termination beyond the statutory limit, including Minor S (Thr. Father B) v. State & Anr., 2025: DHC: 2710; Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156; Mrs. X v. GNCTD & Anr., W.P. (C) 16607/2022; Minor S through her guardian B v. State, Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P. (Crl.) 2763/2026; and Minor R Thr. Mother H v. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383.

The Court treated the petitioner’s status as a minor rape survivor, her and her mother’s express wish to terminate, and the Medical Board’s finding that she was physically fit as central considerations.

Applying the constitutional principles set out in S v. Union of India, it held that the statutory gestational limit did not bar relief in the Court’s constitutional jurisdiction and that the petitioner’s welfare and reproductive autonomy warranted priority.

The Board’s assessment that the baby was likely to be born alive informed the safeguards imposed, but did not prevent the Court from granting permission.

The State was directed to bear the costs of the procedure, hospital stay, and post-operative care.

If the child was born alive, the hospital and State were to provide medical support, including incubator care, notify the Child Welfare Committee, and follow the prescribed adoption procedure if so wished by the minor and her family.

The Court also ordered protection of the petitioner’s identity and directed that any compensation released under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, be kept in an FDR until she attained majority.