Constitutional Courts Not Barred by MTP Act Limits in Cases of Minor Rape Survivors: Delhi HC

In a decisive intervention for reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court has ruled that constitutional courts are not shackled by the statutory gestational limits of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 when protecting the dignity and bodily integrity of minor rape survivors. The judgment reinforces that no woman, particularly a minor, can be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term, establishing that reproductive choice remains an non-negotiable facet of the Right to Life.

A Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the petition filed by a 16-year-old girl through her mother, seeking the medical termination of a 31-week pregnancy resulting from sexual assault. The Court was tasked with balancing the advanced gestational stage against the grave mental injury and trauma faced by the minor petitioner.

Primacy of Mother's Welfare Over Unborn Child

The Court observed that several precedents, including the decision in S versus The Union of India & Ors. ( "SLP (C) No. 14454/2026": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 6442) and Minor S (Thr. Father B) Versus State & Anr. ( "2025: DHC: 2710": 2024 CaseBase(DEL) 5197), have consistently allowed termination beyond the 24-week limit. It specifically highlighted that the focus must remain on the autonomy of the pregnant woman.

The Court, in its reasoning, 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. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decisional autonomy but could also inflict grave mental, emotional and physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth. In these circumstances, denying the relief sought would compel the minor to endure irreversible consequences... What is of relevance is the choice of the pregnant woman rather than the interest of an unborn child."

Furthermore, the Court referred to Minor R Thr Mother H Versus State NCT of Delhi & Anr. to emphasize that forcing a minor to give birth affects her dignified existence and constitutes a violation of human rights.

Court Directions

The Court issued the following directions:

"I. The procedure for termination of pregnancy shall be carried out by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the provisions of MTP Act and the relevant Rules and Regulations and Guidelines prescribed for the aforesaid purpose.

II. Complete record of such procedure, performed upon the minor for the purpose of termination of said pregnancy, shall be maintained by the Medical Board.

III. Respondent no. 2, i.e., Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi, is directed to preserve the tissue of the foetus for the purposes of DNA testing, which would be required with reference to the criminal case which stands registered.

IV. Respondent no. 1, i.e., the State shall bear all the expenses necessary for the termination of the pregnancy of the minor in question and her stay at the hospital during such period. The expenditure towards post-operative period shall also be borne by the State.

V. In case the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi in conjunction with the State Authorities, would ensure that medical support, as well as every possible and feasible assistance is offered to such child, and the child shall be kept in an incubator. Intimation in this regard shall be given to the concerned Child Welfare Committee (CWC), and as and when so required, further directions be sought from CWC.

VI. In that case, as per wish of minor and her family, such child be given in adoption as per prescribed procedure.

VII. The identity of the petitioner/minor survivor shall be strictly protected."

Background

The petitioner, a 16-year-old rape victim, approached the Court at 31 weeks of pregnancy, a period significantly exceeding the 24-week ceiling set by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The State produced a report from Lady Hardinge Medical College stating the petitioner was physically fit for the procedure, though noting the high probability of the baby being born alive.

The Court relied on a string of precedents including Venkatalakshmi Versus The State of Karnataka & Ors., Mrs. X Versus GNCTD & Anr. ( "W.P. (C) 16607/2022": 2022 CaseBase(DEL) 1618), and Minor S through her guardian B Versus State, Government of NCT of Delhi, where pregnancies ranging from 26 to 33 weeks were permitted to be terminated. Invoking Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Constitutional provisions, the Court allowed the petition, noting that forcing the minor to visit illegal abortion centers due to a lack of statutory remedy would expose her to more dangerous procedures. The Court also directed that victim compensation be kept in a Fixed Deposit until the minor attains majority.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 3287/2026
Case Title: Minor P Thr Her Mother A V. State & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anwesh Madhukar with Mr. Pranjal Shekhar and Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocates.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate for the State.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 6686