1. Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court has allowed a 17-year-old rape survivor to medically terminate her pregnancy despite the gestational age exceeding the statutory ceiling of 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended in 2021. Relying on constitutional protections under Article 21, medical board findings, and a long line of precedents recognising the autonomy and dignity of survivors of sexual assault, the Court held that forcing the minor to continue the pregnancy would inflict grave physical and mental injury. The hospital was directed to conduct the procedure immediately, preserve fetal tissue for investigation, and provide full care. The State was directed to bear all expenses.
2. Facts
On 25 March 2025, the minor went missing after stepping downstairs to buy household goods. Her mother lodged a complaint the next day, leading to registration of FIR No. 142/2025 under Section 137(2) BNS. On 22 November 2025, she was found in Bihar and brought back to Delhi, where medical examination revealed a pregnancy of approximately 25 weeks. She stated she had travelled to Bhagalpur to stay with her boyfriend. On 24 November 2025, she appeared before the Child Welfare Committee, expressed her desire to return to her mother, and sought termination. The medical board at Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital on 4 December 2025 confirmed pregnancy at 26 weeks and 5 days and opined that continuation would gravely harm her mental health.
3. Issues
The central issues were:
- Whether constitutional courts may permit termination of pregnancy beyond the 24-week limit in cases of sexual assault involving minors.
- Whether the medical board report sufficiently established grave risk to the mental and physical health of the minor.
- Whether the statutory presumptions under Section 3(2) and Explanation 2 of the MTP Act apply.
- Whether reproductive autonomy under Article 21 entitles a minor rape survivor to terminate pregnancy despite statutory restrictions.
- What safeguards and directions should accompany the termination to protect the minor’s health and integrity.
4. Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner, through counsel, argued that the minor rape survivor possesses an unquestionable constitutional right to seek termination under Article 21, which protects dignity, bodily integrity, privacy, and reproductive choice. They relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents where courts had allowed termination even at 26, 27, 33 and more weeks. Counsel submitted that the medical board had already declared the minor physically fit for MTP and that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave psychological distress. They emphasised that Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act presumes grave injury to mental health when pregnancy results from rape. Therefore, judicial intervention was warranted to safeguard the minor’s rights.
5. Respondent’s arguments
The State submitted that all records had been verified, the medical board had unequivocally supported termination, and in view of the minor’s age, circumstances, and medical assessment, the State had no objection. The State supported granting relief, provided the Court laid down appropriate safeguards and permitted doctors to withhold or cancel the procedure only if her life were at risk. The State also agreed to bear all costs relating to treatment, medication, and hospital care.
6. Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed reading of Section 3 of the MTP Act, especially the 2021 amendment. While statutory permission for termination beyond 24 weeks exists only for cases involving substantial fetal abnormality, Explanation 2 establishes a presumption of grave mental injury where pregnancy is caused by rape. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional courts, exercising writ jurisdiction, may allow termination in extraordinary circumstances to protect fundamental rights. Article 21 encompasses reproductive autonomy and decisional freedom. The Court emphasised that the minor’s age, the nature of the sexual assault, and the unwanted pregnancy justified application of this constitutional exception. The medical board’s findings, visible on page 4 of the judgment, confirmed both physical fitness and serious mental health implications, strengthening the petitioner’s case.
7. Precedent analysis
The Court relied on multiple binding and persuasive precedents:
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1
Recognised reproductive choice as a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21. Applied to emphasise bodily integrity.
X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare (AIR 2022 SC 4917)
Held that marital status is irrelevant and that women have absolute autonomy regarding pregnancy when continuation threatens mental or physical health. Applied to reinforce the minor’s decisional rights.
XYZ v. State of Gujarat (2023)
Affirmed reproductive autonomy as essential to dignity under Article 21. Applied to the minor’s right to avoid forced motherhood.
X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 9 SCC 433
Interpreted MTP Rules purposively to ensure access to abortion in difficult circumstances, recognising delays caused by trauma, social pressure, or financial constraints. Applied to justify judicial relaxation of the statutory limit.
High Court precedents
The Court cited decisions permitting termination at 24–33 weeks in cases involving minors or survivors of sexual assault, such as Minor S (2025), Minor R (2023), and Mrs. X (2022). These reinforced the judicial policy of prioritising mental health, dignity, and autonomy.
8. Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the minor, a 17-year-old rape survivor, had suffered severe trauma. Continuing the pregnancy would compound her ordeal, subjecting her to lifelong psychological distress and social stigma. Relying on the medical board’s findings, the Court held that the minor was physically fit for MTP and that her mental health would be gravely endangered if forced to carry the pregnancy to term. The Court stressed that reproductive autonomy must be given primacy. It also noted the minor and her mother appeared in person and categorically expressed a conscious, informed decision to terminate. Accordingly, statutory limits yielded to constitutional protection of dignity and bodily integrity.
9. Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital to conduct the termination at the earliest, subject to medical precautions. Doctors were permitted to withhold the procedure if the minor’s life was at risk. The State was ordered to bear all expenses. Fetal tissue was to be preserved for DNA testing. If the child were born alive, the hospital and Child Welfare Committee were directed to provide full care as per law. Copies of the order were forwarded for immediate compliance.
10. Implications
This ruling further strengthens the jurisprudence recognising reproductive autonomy as a core element of Article 21. It affirms that statutory ceilings under the MTP Act do not inhibit constitutional courts from granting relief in cases of sexual assault, especially involving minors. The judgment highlights the presumption of grave mental injury for pregnancies resulting from rape and reinforces that forcing a minor to carry an unwanted pregnancy violates dignity, bodily integrity, mental health, and long-term wellbeing. It also underscores the role of medical boards, the need to preserve evidence for criminal trials, and the State’s responsibility to support survivors financially and medically.
CASE LAW REFERENCES
Suchita Srivastava (2009) 9 SCC 1
Held reproductive choice is a facet of Article 21; applied to justify termination beyond 24 weeks.
X v. Principal Secretary (2022)
Emphasised autonomy irrespective of marital status; applied to minor rape survivor.
X2 v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023)
Stressed purposive reading of MTP Rules; applied to overcome statutory limits.
Minor R, Minor S, Mrs. X (Delhi HC)
Permitted termination at advanced gestations where continuation harmed mental health.
FAQs
1. Can a High Court allow abortion beyond 24 weeks in India?
Yes. Constitutional courts may permit termination beyond 24 weeks in exceptional circumstances—such as rape or grave threat to mental or physical health—despite statutory limits.
2. Why was termination allowed at 26+ weeks in this case?
Because the pregnancy resulted from rape, the minor faced grave mental trauma, and the medical board confirmed she was fit for termination while continuation posed risk to her wellbeing.
3. Who bears the cost of termination in such cases?
The Court directed the State to bear all expenses, including medical care, medicines, and related support.