Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by a 30-year-old unmarried woman seeking termination of a 22-week pregnancy conceived on the false pretext of marriage. The Court directed that the pregnancy be medically terminated at AIIMS immediately, while ensuring that foetal tissue and other relevant samples are preserved for DNA analysis to aid the pending criminal investigation. Justice Ravinder Dudeja emphasized that “the decision of the victim whether to give birth to the conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy has to be given primacy”.
Facts
The petitioner was in a live-in relationship for about two years, during which the man repeatedly established physical relations with her under a false promise of marriage. In late 2024, she conceived but was compelled to terminate the pregnancy through medication. In June 2025, she again became pregnant, but when she refused to undergo another termination, she was assaulted on 15 May 2025 and later abandoned. A complaint was lodged on 1 July 2025 at PS Sarita Vihar, resulting in FIR No. 459/2025 under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to terminate her pregnancy, preserve foetal tissue for DNA testing, and ensure its evidentiary use in the pending FIR.
Issues
- Whether a woman, unmarried and pregnant for over 22 weeks due to sexual relations on the false promise of marriage, is entitled to seek termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
- Whether continuance of such pregnancy would constitute “grave injury to physical or mental health” under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act.
- Whether foetal tissue can be directed to be preserved for DNA testing to aid criminal investigation..
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that her pregnancy, being the result of sexual abuse, was unwanted and caused grave injury to her physical and mental health, besides exposing her to severe social stigma. It was argued that under Explanation 2 to Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, pregnancies caused by rape or sexual assault up to 24 weeks can be terminated, with anguish presumed to constitute grave injury to mental health.
She relied on the Supreme Court rulings in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1, X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Deptt. AIR 2022 SC 4917, and XYZ v. State of Gujarat (SLP Crl. Diary No. 33790/2023) to contend that reproductive choice and bodily integrity are part of Article 21 and extend to all women regardless of marital status. She also urged that foetal tissue be preserved post-termination for DNA analysis to establish paternity.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that it had obtained a medical report from AIIMS, confirming that the petitioner was fit for medical termination. The report was produced before the Court. Pursuant to earlier directions of the Court, the petitioner was examined by two doctors at AIIMS, and the Medical Board concluded that she was clinically fit for termination, with no medical risks involved. It was also confirmed through video conference that the petitioner was making an informed decision while seeking termination.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971, as amended in 2021, which permits termination up to 24 weeks in cases where continuance of pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health. Explanation 2 specifically provides that pregnancies alleged to be caused by rape shall be presumed to constitute grave injury to the woman’s mental health.
The Court highlighted that under sub-section (2)(b), termination beyond 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks requires the opinion of at least two registered medical practitioners, which was satisfied in this case. The Court reiterated that the MTP Act must be purposively interpreted to ensure that women in vulnerable circumstances are not denied access to abortion.
Precedent Analysis
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1: Established that a woman’s right to reproductive choice is an integral part of personal liberty under Article 21 and encompasses the right to bodily integrity.
- X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Deptt. (2022): Held that irrespective of marital status, women have the right to terminate pregnancy if continuation endangers their health.
- XYZ v. State of Gujarat (2023): Reiterated that pregnancies outside marriage due to sexual assault cause grave mental injury and reproductive autonomy is central to Article 21.
- X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433: Interpreted Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules purposively, ensuring meaningful access to abortion for survivors of sexual violence, incest, or those facing social constraints. The Supreme Court linked reproductive autonomy to dignity, privacy, and decisional freedom, affirming that forced continuation of an unwanted pregnancy violates constitutional personhood.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s pregnancy, resulting from sexual relations on the false pretext of marriage, was unwanted and had inflicted severe trauma. It observed: “Suffering of the victim cannot be compounded if she is forced to continue the pregnancy. Apart from above, victim is bound to face social stigma which may not permit the scars left by the defilement of her body to heal.”
The Court underscored that reproductive choice is a fundamental aspect of dignity and liberty under Article 21. Since AIIMS confirmed medical fitness for termination and the law permits abortion up to 24 weeks in such cases, the Court ruled in favour of the petitioner.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the petition, permitting immediate medical termination of pregnancy at AIIMS. It directed the Investigating Officer to ensure foetal tissue and relevant samples are collected and preserved for DNA analysis to aid the ongoing criminal investigation. The Court reaffirmed that the woman’s decision regarding her pregnancy must be given primacy and that reproductive autonomy is constitutionally protected.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that women, irrespective of marital status, have the right to terminate pregnancies caused by sexual assault or false promises of marriage up to 24 weeks. It strengthens the constitutional interpretation of reproductive autonomy as a facet of Article 21, encompassing bodily integrity, dignity, and decisional freedom. The Court’s directive to preserve foetal tissue for DNA analysis also ensures balance between reproductive rights and criminal justice, supporting prosecution while safeguarding the woman’s autonomy.
FAQs
1. Can an unmarried woman terminate a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks under Indian law?
Yes, under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, as amended in 2021, pregnancies up to 24 weeks can be terminated for certain categories, including survivors of sexual assault. The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that marital status is irrelevant.
2. What did the Court say about reproductive autonomy in this case?
The Court emphasized that reproductive choice is part of Article 21 and held: “The decision of the victim whether to give birth to the conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy has to be given primacy.”
3. Why was DNA preservation ordered after termination?
The Court directed that foetal tissue be preserved for DNA testing to establish paternity and aid investigation in the pending criminal case, ensuring evidence is not lost.
