Delhi HC Allows MTP Beyond Statutory Limit for 15-Year-Old Rape Victim

In a profound affirmation of reproductive autonomy, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the lack of a statutory remedy under existing laws cannot bar a constitutional remedy for a rape victim seeking termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

Directing immediate medical intervention for a 15-year-old girl, Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized that compelling a minor to carry a pregnancy to term against her will inflicts grave mental and emotional trauma, violating her fundamental right to life and personal liberty.

Constitutional Remedy Supersedes Statutory Barriers

The case was brought before a vacation bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna, where the petitioner, a minor victim of sexual assault, sought a writ of mandamus to terminate her pregnancy which had reached approximately 26-28 weeks. This gestational period exceeds the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "...although the MTP Act does not provide for termination of pregnancy over the gestational age 24 weeks, the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be invoked for termination of pregnancy in cases of rape, as in such cases, grave mental injury and trauma is inflicted upon the mind of the minor."

Judicial Precedents on Reproductive Choice

The Court relied extensively on the legal principles established in Minor J Thr Mother P Versus State and Another and Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnatka, noting that the High Court and Supreme Court have consistently permitted termination beyond the statutory limit when the pregnancy results from sexual assault. Referring to the recent Supreme Court order in S Versus The Union of India & Ors., the Court highlighted that the right to make decisions concerning one’s body is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

In S v.The Union of India & Ors., the Apex Court had authoritatively stated that if a case is not covered within the four corners of a statute, the constitutional relief cannot be denied. Furthermore, the Court drew upon X v. Health & Family Welfare Department to reiterate that reproductive autonomy is rooted in a woman's right to bodily integrity and self-determination.

Court Directions

The Court has the following directions:

"I. The petitioner is permitted to get herself admitted at AIIMS, New Delhi on the strength of the present order for medical termination of her pregnancy.

II. Let the procedure for termination of pregnancy 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.

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

IV. Respondent no. 2, i.e., AIIMS, 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.

V. Needless to say, respondent no. 2, i.e., GNCTD 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.

VI. In case the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, 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.

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

Background:

The petitioner, a 15-year-old girl represented by her father, approached the High Court seeking the termination of her pregnancy resulting from rape. The medical board at AIIMS, New Delhi, conducted a clinical and psychiatric evaluation, concluding that continuation of the pregnancy would have a severe adverse psychological impact on the minor.

The State (GNCTD) expressed no objection to the procedure given the medical report. The Court noted that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Articles 21 and 226 of the Constitution of India provide the necessary legal framework for such an intervention. By invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court prioritized the mental well-being and bodily autonomy of the victim over the rigid timelines of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(CRL) 1804/2026
Case Title: MINOR R (THR. HER FATHER R) v. STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ANR
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, (DHCLSC) with Mr. Pranjal S., Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 451