41 September 13 2025

DELHI HIGH COURT ALLOWS 15-YEAR-OLD RAPE SURVIVOR TO TERMINATE 27-WEEK PREGNANCY

FACT OF CASE
The Delhi High Court was seized of a petition filed on behalf of a 15-year-old minor girl seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy, which had reached 27 weeks of gestation. The pregnancy was the consequence of sexual assault. The petitioner contended that compelling the minor to continue with the pregnancy would cause grave harm to her physical and mental health, thereby violating her fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
The legal issue concerned the permissibility of medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The Court was called upon to decide whether, in exceptional circumstances such as those involving sexual assault of a minor, constitutional rights could override the statutory embargo.

CONTENTIONS BY PETITIONER
The petitioner argued that the pregnancy was the result of coercive sexual exploitation under false promises of marriage. Upon disclosure to her parents, an FIR was promptly lodged, and medical examinations confirmed the pregnancy to be 27 weeks. The counsel stressed that Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act recognizes that pregnancies resulting from rape inherently cause grave mental injury to the woman. It was further contended that the enforcement of Article 21, encompassing the right to live with dignity and mental health, necessitated judicial intervention notwithstanding the statutory limit. Reliance was placed upon precedents where constitutional courts had permitted termination of pregnancies even beyond the statutory threshold.

CONTENTIONS BY RESPONDENTS
The State resisted the plea, emphasizing that the foetus had crossed 24 weeks, possessed a heartbeat, and might be born alive in case of medical termination. It was submitted that, given the viability of the foetus, statutory provisions could not be bypassed. Thus, the Court ought not to permit termination in derogation of the legislative framework.

COURT OBSERVATIONS
The Court examined the medical report submitted by the Medical Board of Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, which unequivocally stated that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave injury to the mental health of the minor victim. The report also noted that although the foetus might be born alive, survival would be uncertain and fraught with complications of prematurity. Justice Arun Monga observed that the minor’s mental and physical well-being must take precedence over the uncertain prospects of foetal survival. The Court underscored that while the MTP Act prescribes 24 weeks as the statutory limit, constitutional courts are empowered to permit termination in extraordinary cases where the continuance of pregnancy undermines fundamental rights.

RELEVANT CASE LAW & LAW DISCUSSION 
The Court drew upon constitutional jurisprudence recognizing the right to reproductive autonomy as intrinsic to Article 21. The 2021 amendment to the MTP Act, fixing 24 weeks as the statutory limit, was acknowledged, but the Court highlighted judicial precedents where termination had been allowed even at advanced gestational stages, particularly when pregnancies resulted from sexual assault or involved foetal abnormalities incompatible with life.

A significant observation was made regarding the unsettled legal position concerning the rights of a viable foetus. While medical science recognizes viability around 24 weeks, the Court noted that the statute is silent on foetal rights beyond this stage. The judgment emphasized that maternal autonomy and dignity must prevail over competing claims of foetal survival, but also called upon the legislature to clearly delineate the balance between maternal rights and foetal viability to avoid reliance solely on judicial discretion.

COURT DIRECTIONS / JUDGMENT 
The Court allowed the petition and directed XXXX Hospital to undertake termination of pregnancy forthwith. The hospital was ordered to admit the petitioner immediately and proceed with the procedure, subject to medical discretion if any risk to her life was perceived. The foetus and tissue samples were directed to be preserved for DNA analysis in connection with the criminal trial. In case of a live birth, the hospital was mandated to extend all feasible medical care, and the Child Welfare Committee was instructed to assume responsibility under law. The costs of the procedure were directed to be borne by the State.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGMENT
The judgment reinforces the primacy of constitutional rights of women and minors over statutory limitations in cases of reproductive choice. By prioritizing the minor’s right to dignity, autonomy, and mental health over the uncertain prospects of foetal viability, the Court reaffirmed that Article 21 cannot be subordinated to rigid biological or statutory cut-offs. The decision also highlights the urgent need for legislative clarity on the status of viable foetuses, an area currently left to judicial balancing on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, the Court has not only granted immediate relief to the victim but also contributed significantly to the evolving jurisprudence on reproductive rights in India.

____________________________
DATE OF DECISION: 12.09.2025
CASE NUMBER:W.P.(CRL) 2913/2025

Author

avatar
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District Courts
LL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University


Comments are not allowed on this article.