Delhi High Court Permits Termination of Roughly 31-Week Pregnancy of Minor Rape Survivor, Holding Constitutional Courts Are Not Confined by MTP Act Gestational Limits

A 16-year-old rape survivor, about 31 weeks pregnant, sought through her mother a writ permitting medical termination, the gestation exceeding the limits of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act). The Medical Board found her physically fit but reported that the baby was likely to be born alive (Paras 3–9). Following S v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 24.04.2026), which held that Constitutional Courts under Article 226 are not constrained by MTP Act limits and must prioritise a minor’s welfare, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy (Paras 15–16), and earlier Delhi High Court orders allowing late termination (Paras 11–14, 17), the Court allowed the petition with safeguards, including DNA preservation, State-borne costs, care for a live-born child and strict identity protection (Paras 19–22).

Key Proposition: Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S v. Union of India, a writ court under Article 226 is not constrained by the gestational limits of the MTP Act and may permit termination of a minor rape survivor’s unwanted pregnancy, even at about 31 weeks, where the Medical Board finds her fit, subject to safeguards for the survivor, any live-born child and the criminal case.

• Constitution of India – Articles 226, 21 – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021) – Termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor at about 31 weeks – Whether permissible beyond the statutory limit – Held, yes; Constitutional Courts are not constrained by MTP Act limits and must prioritise the pregnant minor’s welfare and reproductive autonomy (S v. Union of India followed). (Paras 10, 15–16, 19)
• Medical Board report that the petitioner is physically fit but the baby is likely to be born alive – Held, not a bar; termination permitted with directions for care of a live-born child, Child Welfare Committee intimation and adoption per the wish of the minor and family. (Paras 6–7, 19)
• Identity protection and preservation of evidence – Held, foetal tissue to be preserved for DNA testing in the registered criminal case; identity of the minor survivor to be strictly protected. (Para 19)

• The petitioner is a 16-year-old girl, alleged to be a victim of rape, approximately 31 weeks pregnant; she and her mother wished to terminate the pregnancy because its continuation would cause grave mental injury. (Paras 2–3)
• The petition was filed under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) seeking a writ directing respondents 1 and 2 to medically terminate the pregnancy, the gestation being beyond the limits of the MTP Act. (Paras 1, 4)
• The State handed over the report of the Medical Board at Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi (respondent No. 2): physically fit for termination, but the baby likely to be born alive. The mother, present in person, confirmed through counsel that the family wished to proceed forthwith. The minor had already been admitted to the hospital. (Paras 6–9, 18)
• Date and details of the offence or FIR: Not stated in judgment (a criminal case is noted as registered, Para 19).

•  Whether, the gestation exceeding the limits of the MTP Act, the Court could permit medical termination of the minor survivor’s pregnancy under Article 226 read with Article 21, in light of the Medical Board’s report.

Petitioner:

• The petitioner invokes her right to life under Article 21; refusing termination would cause grave mental injury and trauma given her young age and the circumstances in which the pregnancy was caused. The family wishes to proceed forthwith. (Paras 3–5, 9)
• Counsel further asked that compensation under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 when released be kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) until she attains majority. (Para 20)

Respondent (State):

• The State placed the Medical Board report on record; any opposition to the petition: Not stated in judgment. (Paras 6–8)

Re: Issue (i): Termination beyond the MTP Act limit

• The Supreme Court and this Court have permitted termination beyond 24 weeks in several cases: Minor S (Thr. Father B) v. State & Anr., 2025:DHC:2710 (over 27 weeks); Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156 (26 weeks); Mrs. X v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 16607/2022 (33 weeks); and Minor S through her guardian B v. State, W.P.(Crl) 2763/2026 (over 30 weeks). (Paras 10–14)
• In S v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 14454/2026 (24.04.2026), allowing termination at 28 weeks, the Supreme Court held that under Article 226 or 32 courts are not constrained by the MTP Act limits, reproductive choice is part of Article 21, and no minor rape survivor can be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy because the statutory limit has passed; the focus is on the woman’s welfare and autonomy, and absence of foetal abnormality, advanced gestation or absence of a psychiatric disorder cannot alone justify denial. The Court reproduced those observations. (Paras 15–16)
• Minor R Thr Mother H v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383 (24 weeks 5 days) recognised that termination for a minor rape victim is a human right affecting her dignified existence, and that she should not be expected to bear the burden of giving birth and raising a child in adolescence. (Para 17)
• Held: In light of the Medical Board’s opinion that the minor is medically fit, termination is permitted in the best interest of the minor survivor, subject to safeguards. (Para 19)

• “A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy.” (Quoted by the Court from S v. Union of India, within Para 16)
• “No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will.” (Quoted by the Court from S v. Union of India, within Para 16)

• Petition allowed; medical termination of the pregnancy permitted in the best interest of the minor survivor, subject to the following directions. (Paras 19, 22)

1. The procedure shall be carried out by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act and the relevant Rules, Regulations and Guidelines.
2. A complete record of the procedure shall be maintained by the Medical Board.
3. Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital (respondent No. 2) shall preserve the foetal tissue for DNA testing required in the registered criminal case.
4. The State (respondent No. 1) shall bear all expenses of the termination, the minor’s hospital stay and the post-operative period.
5. If the child is born alive, the Medical Superintendent with the State authorities shall ensure medical support and every feasible assistance, the child to be kept in an incubator, with intimation to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and further directions to be sought from the CWC as required.
6. In that event, as per the wish of the minor and her family, the child shall be given in adoption as per the prescribed procedure.
7. The identity of the minor survivor shall be strictly protected; the authorities, hospital, Medical Board and all associated persons shall not disclose her name, address, photographs, medical records or other identifying particulars, save as authorised or required by law.
8. Compensation under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, when released, shall be kept in an FDR and released to the minor on her attaining majority. (Paras 20–21)

•  Order to be given dasti. Costs: Not stated in judgment. Separate Opinions: None. (Para 23)

• Constitution of India – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction), Article 21 (life, personal liberty, privacy and reproductive autonomy); Article 32 (as discussed in S v. Union of India).
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 (inherent powers of the High Court) ↔ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482.
• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended by the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021 – Statutory gestational limit of 24 weeks (Para 10); termination beyond it ordinarily needs court permission.
• Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 – Compensation to be held in FDR until majority.
• Doctrines: Reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity as facets of Article 21; welfare of the pregnant minor over the interest of the unborn child in unwanted pregnancies; constitutional remedy not barred by absence of statutory remedy.
• S v. Union of India, SLP (C) No. 14454/2026 (Supreme Court, 24.04.2026) – Followed.
• Minor R Thr Mother H v. State NCT of Delhi, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383 – Relied on.
• Minor S (Thr. Father B) v. State & Anr., 2025:DHC:2710 (17.04.2025); Minor S through her guardian B v. State, W.P.(Crl) 2763/2026 (08.09.2026); Mrs. X v. GNCTD, W.P.(C) 16607/2022 (06.12.2022); Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156 – Referred to (late-term terminations allowed).