Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the medical termination of a 26-week pregnancy of a sixteen-year-old minor who was a victim of sexual assault, despite the Medical Board’s negative recommendation. Emphasising the grave mental trauma endured by the minor and her unequivocal wish not to continue with the pregnancy, the Court held that her bodily autonomy and right to self-determination under Article 21 must prevail. The Court directed AIIMS to carry out the termination procedure immediately with all necessary precautions, preserve fetal tissue for investigation, and ensure that the State bears all costs. If a child is born alive during the process, the authorities are to ensure its welfare, including adoption if needed.
Facts
A sixteen-year-old minor, a victim of two instances of sexual assault—one during Diwali 2024 and another in March 2025—became pregnant without her knowledge. She learned of her pregnancy only on 21 June 2025 during a medical visit. An FIR was promptly registered. By then, the pregnancy had crossed the statutory limit of 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The minor and her mother approached the Court seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy due to the immense mental trauma caused by the assaults and the undesired pregnancy. A Medical Board at AIIMS opined against termination, citing the fetus’s viability and risks of a late-term abortion, but confirmed the minor’s physical fitness for the procedure.
Issues
- Whether the Court could permit medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks in the absence of fetal abnormality.
- Whether grave mental trauma due to sexual assault justifies overriding the Medical Board’s adverse recommendation.
- How to balance the fetus’s viability with the minor’s bodily autonomy and mental health.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the pregnancy resulted from rape, causing grave mental trauma which, under Explanation 2 to Section 3 of the MTP Act, is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the woman. The counsel cited previous Supreme Court and High Court judgments permitting termination beyond 24 weeks in exceptional circumstances, including severe mental trauma. It was stressed that the minor and her mother had given informed consent and that any delay in filing the petition was solely due to the victim’s lack of awareness. They argued that the victim’s fundamental right to bodily autonomy and dignity outweighed the risk factors highlighted by the Medical Board.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State, through its counsel, acknowledged the Medical Board’s report, which advised against termination due to the fetus’s viability and risks to the minor’s future reproductive health. However, the Board did not dispute the minor’s physical fitness for the procedure and left the final decision to the Court, should it deem the termination appropriate in the circumstances. The State assured the Court of compliance with any direction, including medical and logistical support, cost coverage, and coordination with the Child Welfare Committee if the child is born alive.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed Section 3 of the MTP Act, which permits termination up to 20 weeks generally and up to 24 weeks for specific categories such as victims of rape. Explanation 2 explicitly presumes that pregnancies from rape cause grave mental injury, justifying termination. The statutory bar beyond 24 weeks is lifted only for substantial fetal abnormalities. However, Constitutional Courts have in exceptional cases exercised their extraordinary jurisdiction to allow termination in the interests of the victim’s mental and physical well-being. The Court found that statutory limits cannot override fundamental rights when compelling circumstances, like severe mental trauma from rape, justify intervention.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on:
- A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2024) where the Supreme Court allowed termination of a 29-week pregnancy of a rape victim.
- Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2017) where termination at 26 weeks was permitted for a minor victim of sexual assault.
- Mrs. X v. GNCTD & Anr. (2022) where the Delhi High Court allowed termination at 33 weeks due to fetal abnormalities despite the Medical Board’s contrary opinion.
- The Court also reaffirmed the principle from Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn., recognising a woman’s reproductive choice as an intrinsic facet of her personal liberty under Article 21.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court acknowledged the minor’s consistent and unequivocal wish not to continue the pregnancy, as confirmed during a direct telephonic conversation. It noted the minor’s mother’s clear consent and understanding of the risks. While the Medical Board cited the risks associated with late-term abortion, the Court found that the grave mental trauma caused by rape outweighed these risks, particularly as the minor’s physical fitness was not in dispute. The right to bodily autonomy and mental well-being under Article 21 demanded judicial intervention. The Court balanced these competing interests by mandating preservation of fetal tissue for DNA profiling, ensuring State-funded medical care, and safeguarding the welfare of any live-born child through statutory processes like adoption.
Conclusion
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed AIIMS to perform the termination immediately under all medical safeguards, preserve evidence, and ensure State funding for the entire procedure, including post-operative care. Should the fetus be born alive, the child’s welfare is to be ensured by the Medical Superintendent and State authorities, with the Child Welfare Committee’s involvement and the mother’s consent to adoption if needed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that courts can transcend statutory gestational limits in rape cases to protect the bodily autonomy and mental health of survivors. It clarifies that the victim’s right to make reproductive choices must be prioritised, especially when supported by informed consent and severe mental trauma. The order serves as a precedent for balancing statutory frameworks with constitutional rights in sensitive cases involving minor rape survivors.
FAQs
1. Can Indian courts allow termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks in rape cases?
Yes, Constitutional Courts can permit termination beyond the statutory limit if grave mental trauma or risk to the woman’s health is proven, as reaffirmed in this judgment.
2. What did the Medical Board say about the termination?
The AIIMS Medical Board advised against it due to fetal viability and risks but confirmed the minor’s physical fitness and left the final decision to the Court.
3. What happens if the fetus is born alive during termination?
The Court directed that the State must care for the child in conjunction with the Child Welfare Committee and facilitate adoption if needed.
