Minor Rape Victim Permitted To Terminate 28-Week Pregnancy: Delhi High Court Cites Right To Bodily Autonomy Under Article 21

"Right to make decisions concerning one’s body, particularly in matters of reproduction, is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing unreasonable restrictions, especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies," Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has permitted a 15-year-old rape victim to undergo medical termination of her 28-week pregnancy, observing that reproductive choice is a fundamental right.

A vacation bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that forcing a minor to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term would negate her bodily autonomy and cause grave mental trauma. The Court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of Constitutional Courts can be invoked even when the gestational age exceeds the statutory limits prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

The petitioner, a 15-year-old minor girl acting through her father, approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for the medical termination of her pregnancy. The petitioner was a victim of sexual assault and was at an approximate gestational period of 26-28 weeks at the time of filing. Since the pregnancy had exceeded the 24-week limit stipulated under the MTP Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), the intervention of the Court was sought under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The primary question before the Court was whether a minor rape victim could be permitted to terminate a pregnancy that had exceeded the statutory limit of 24 weeks. The Court was also called upon to determine if the continuation of such a pregnancy would constitute a violation of the petitioner’s right to life and mental health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Medical Board Recommends Termination Due To Adverse Psychological Impact

The Court took into account a report issued by the Medical Board of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The board, following a clinical and psychological assessment, opined that the continuation of the pregnancy was likely to have a "severe adverse psychological impact" on the minor. The board further declared the petitioner medically fit to undergo the procedure.

The Court noted that when a medical board confirms that the continuation of a pregnancy poses a risk to the mental or physical health of the woman, the court must lean in favor of the woman's right to choose.

"Continuation of pregnancy is likely to have adverse psychological impact on the minor petitioner."

Constitutional Courts Can Intervene Beyond Statutory MTP Limits

The Court observed that while the MTP Act does not typically provide for termination beyond 24 weeks except in cases of fetal abnormality, the Constitutional Courts possess the power to grant relief in cases of rape and grave trauma. Justice Pushkarna noted that the minor was "compelled to file the present petition" precisely because the statutory remedy was unavailable due to the advanced stage of pregnancy.

Referencing several precedents, the Court held that the lack of a statutory remedy does not bar a constitutional remedy. The bench emphasized that the MTP Act itself codifies only a part of the constitutional right to reproductive health.

"There is no qualm with respect to the fact that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be invoked in such a situation and wherever found so permissible, the pregnancy can be directed to be terminated."

Reproductive Choice Is Integral To Personal Liberty Under Article 21

Highlighting the importance of bodily autonomy, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, which affirmed that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is an intrinsic part of her fundamental rights. The Court stated that no woman, and certainly no minor, should be compelled to carry a pregnancy to term against her express will.

The Bench observed that such compulsion would not only disregard decisional autonomy but also inflict irreversible emotional and physical trauma. It noted that the welfare of the pregnant woman must be considered paramount over the interest of the unborn child in such sensitive cases.

"No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will."

Right To Decisional Autonomy Firmly Rooted In Bodily Integrity

The Court further relied on the 2022 Supreme Court judgment in X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, which expanded the scope of reproductive rights. The Court reiterated that a woman’s right to choose whether to have children is a deeply personal matter that she is best placed to evaluate.

The bench noted that a mere clinical description of pregnancy cannot capture the profound consequences of forcing a survivor of sexual assault to bear a child resulting from that trauma. It concluded that the decision to terminate is firmly rooted in the right to bodily integrity.

"The decision to either continue or terminate a pregnancy is firmly rooted in the woman’s right to bodily integrity and decisional autonomy, which are integral facets of her fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution."

Directions For Procedure And Post-Operative Care

Allowing the petition, the Court directed AIIMS to admit the petitioner and conduct the termination procedure through a team of competent doctors. The Court passed specific directions to ensure the State bears all medical and post-operative expenses. Furthermore, it ordered the preservation of the fetal tissue for DNA testing to assist in the pending criminal investigation.

The Court also addressed the possibility of the child being born alive, directing the Medical Superintendent to provide all necessary medical support and incubators. If the child survives and the petitioner still wishes not to keep the infant, the child is to be given for adoption as per the prescribed procedure through the Child Welfare Committee.

The High Court concluded that forcing the 15-year-old petitioner to continue the 28-week pregnancy would be a violation of her fundamental rights. By prioritizing the mental health and bodily autonomy of the minor rape survivor, the Court reaffirmed that Constitutional protections transcend statutory limitations in cases of extreme hardship and trauma. The petition was disposed of with directions for immediate medical intervention.

Date of Decision: 24 June 2026