The Delhi High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to medically terminate her pregnancy of over 29 weeks, well beyond the 24-week limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court held that such cases must be examined on their facts rather than decided by the statutory period alone.
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the minor through her grandmother. The petition sought directions for the medical termination of her pregnancy under Section 3(2) of the MTP Act.
Background
The petition was filed under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court’s intervention was sought because the gestational period was beyond the permissible limits under the MTP Act.
The Court noted that the petitioner is a minor girl of approximately 17 years and that the pregnancy, stated to be unwanted, was conceived from a rape for which an FIR has already been registered. She was admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, for care and supervision of the pregnancy.
Arguments
Advocate Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC), appearing for the petitioner along with Advocates Prachi Nirwan, Pranjal Shekhar and Diptasree Bag, submitted that the petitioner and her grandmother both wished to terminate the pregnancy. He argued that continuing it would cause grave mental injury and psychological trauma to the petitioner, given her tender age and the circumstances in which she conceived. He invoked her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Counsel for the parties drew the Court’s attention to the report of the Medical Board constituted at the hospital, which found the petitioner fit for the procedure. Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, submitted that appropriate directions may be passed in view of the Medical Board’s report and the prevalent position of law.
Court’s Findings on MTP Act Statutory Limit
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in S vs. The Union of India & Ors. (2026 INSC 446), which allowed termination at 28 weeks. That ruling held that Constitutional Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 are not constrained by the statutory limits under the MTP Act. In the passage reproduced by the High Court, the Supreme Court observed:
“No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will.”
It further noted that “A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy.”
The Court also referred to Venkatalakshmi vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors., where the Supreme Court allowed termination at 26 weeks. It cited Minor R Thr. Mother H vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr., in which a Co-ordinate Bench permitted termination at 24 weeks and 5 days. It further noted that Co-ordinate Benches had allowed termination in pregnancies exceeding 27, 30 and 33 weeks in Minor S (Thr. Father B) vs. State & Anr., Minor S through her guardian B vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi and Mrs. X Versus GNCTD & Anr., respectively.
Drawing from these precedents, Justice Shankar held:
“the question of medical termination of pregnancy cannot be merely determined or restricted by the statutory period of 24 weeks, but must be examined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the age and the reason of such pregnancy, the medical opinion placed on record, and the rights and the interest of the pregnant woman.”
The Court took note of the Medical Board’s opinion that “Minor V is medically & psychologically fit for termination of pregnancy”, and allowed the petition.
Directions Issued
The Court permitted the termination in the best interest of the minor, subject to the following directions:
- The procedure shall be carried out by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act and the relevant Rules, Regulations and Guidelines.
- The Medical Board shall maintain a complete record of the procedure.
- The hospital shall preserve the foetal tissue for DNA testing in connection with the registered criminal case.
- The State shall bear all expenses of the termination, the hospital stay and the post-operative period.
- If the child is born alive, the Medical Superintendent, along with State authorities, shall ensure medical support and every feasible assistance, keep the child in an incubator, and inform the concerned Child Welfare Committee.
- In that case, the child may be given in adoption as per the prescribed procedure, in line with the wishes of the minor and her family.
- The identity of the minor survivor shall be strictly protected. No particulars capable of identifying her, including her name, address, photographs and medical records, may be disclosed except as authorised or required by law.
The Court directed that the order be sent forthwith to the police and communicated to the hospital’s medical officers. It disposed of the petition in these terms.
Case Title: Minor V Thr Grand Mother M vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: October 24, 2026
