The Delhi High Court has held that where a minor rape survivor seeks termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, and the Medical Board finds her physically fit and supports termination, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to permit termination, even though the statutory upper limit under Section 3 of the MTP Act has been crossed. The Court held that in such rape cases, grave injury to mental health is statutorily presumed under Explanation 2 to Section 3, and that the survivor’s bodily autonomy and reproductive choice are protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the petition and directed GTB Hospital, where the petitioner was already admitted, to carry out the medical termination of pregnancy at the earliest through a team of competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act, relevant rules, regulations and guidelines. It also directed that the complete record of the procedure be maintained by the Medical Board. The Court further directed that the foetal tissue be preserved because it might be required for DNA profiling and investigation. It also ordered that the State would bear all expenses relating to termination, hospital stay and the post-operative period.
The Court added that if the child were born alive, the Medical Superintendent of GTB Hospital, in coordination with State authorities, must ensure every possible and feasible assistance to the child. Intimation was to be given to the concerned Child Welfare Committee, and further directions could be sought from that Committee. The Court also recorded that if such a situation arose, and as per the wish of the minor and her mother, the child could be given in adoption in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Mohan Jain examined Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, especially Explanation 2, which says that where pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. The Court said this statutory presumption clearly applied in the present case, where the pregnancy was alleged to be the result of rape.
The Court observed that although the MTP Act does not ordinarily provide for termination beyond 24 weeks except in cases of substantial foetal abnormality diagnosed by a Medical Board, the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts can still be invoked in appropriate cases. The Court further noted that there was some uncertainty regarding the exact age of the victim, since the FIR described her as 17 years old while the Medical Board referred to her age as 13 years and 9 months, based on a class certificate. However, the Court treated the matter as one involving a minor victim of forcible sexual assault, and found that the allegations in the FIR and the victim’s own statement clearly disclosed rape against her will and without her consent.
Importantly, the Court found nothing in the Medical Board report or ultrasound report to suggest that the girl was physically unfit to undergo medical termination. On the contrary, the Board had expressly found her physically fit, and all members had unanimously recommended termination. The Court also recognised the grave mental injury and trauma caused to a minor due to such sexual assault and reiterated that reproductive choice and bodily autonomy are part of Article 21 protections.
Briefly, a petition was filed on behalf of a minor girl, stated to be 17 years old, who was a survivor of sexual assault and sought permission for termination of her pregnancy. The petition was filed through her mother. According to the case record, the alleged sexual assault took place on March 22, 2026 and the girl later disclosed that she had been raped by her fufa, who had threatened to kill her if she told anyone. She remained silent for about two to three months, but informed her mother after her menstrual cycle stopped, following which medical examination revealed that she was pregnant. An FIR was then registered on July 07,.2026.
The petitioner argued that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave mental anguish and trauma not only to the minor but also to her family, and therefore sought enforcement of her right to life and bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution. After the FIR was registered and the victim’s statement was recorded, she was medically examined at LBS Hospital, where her pregnancy was confirmed, and was later shifted to GTB Hospital for further evaluation.
A Medical Board was constituted at GTB Hospital because the pregnancy had crossed 24 weeks and the termination request therefore required closer judicial scrutiny. The Board met on 10.07.2026 and assessed the girl as a minor sexual assault survivor. It noted that she was under stress though not requiring psychiatric treatment, and unanimously agreed to termination of pregnancy as requested by her guardian. The Board also recorded that informed consent had been explained to the girl and her mother in their own language.
The Medical Board’s final opinion was that termination was allowed and that the girl was physically fit to undergo the procedure. The ultrasound dated July 08, 2026 showed the pregnancy to be of 25 weeks and 5 days, with no congenital abnormality detected and vitals found normal. Before passing orders, the Court also interacted with the mother in chambers and the victim joined the proceedings through a mobile device from the hospital. Both clearly stated that they wanted the pregnancy to be terminated.
