The Delhi High Court allowed a 16-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 26-week pregnancy, emphasizing the severe mental trauma she endured. Justice Manoj Jain, presiding as the vacation judge, directed the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS to arrange the procedure while ensuring all safety measures.
The minor, whose identity remains protected, was sexually assaulted twice—first during Diwali 2024 and again in March 2025. Unaware of her pregnancy, she discovered it only on June 21, 2025, during a medical visit. An FIR was promptly filed, but by then, her gestational period had exceeded the 24-week limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
Read also:- Delhi HC Seeks MCD's Reply on Contempt Plea Over Alleged Illegal Midnight Demolition Near Mangolpuri Mosque
AIIMS constituted a Medical Board, which reported:
- The pregnancy was at 26 weeks and 6 days.
- The fetus was viable with no congenital abnormalities.
- Termination posed risks, including potential future reproductive health complications.
Despite the Board’s denial, the court considered the minor’s mental anguish, as permitted under Explanation 2 of Section 3 of the MTP Act, which presumes grave mental injury in rape cases.
“The anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.” — MTP Act
Court’s Directives
Termination Procedure: AIIMS must conduct the termination on July 1, 2025, adhering to MTP Act guidelines.
Fetal Management: If born alive, the child will receive medical care and be placed under the Child Welfare Committee for adoption.
Costs: The state will cover all medical expenses.
The court referenced precedents like A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra and Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, where pregnancies beyond 24 weeks were terminated for rape survivors. Justice Jain highlighted the minor’s right to bodily autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Key Takeaways
- The court prioritized the survivor’s mental trauma over gestational limits.
- Medical risks were acknowledged but deemed secondary to the minor’s well-being.
- The ruling aligns with constitutional rights and past judicial precedents.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advocate
Title: MINOR A THR HER MOTHER S v. STATE & ANR
