The Bombay High Court has permitted a 17-year-old minor, who became pregnant following an alleged sexual assault, to undergo medical termination of her 28-week pregnancy, observing that her reproductive autonomy and mental well-being must receive due consideration.
A Division Bench of Justice Advait M. Sethna and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhosale passed the order on November 9, 2026, in a writ petition filed by the minor along with her father. The Court directed that the procedure may be carried out at J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, subject to prescribed medical protocols.
Background
The petitioner, aged 17 years and seven months, approached the High Court seeking permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy that had advanced beyond the 24-week limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
According to the petition, the minor was pursuing her Class 12 education when she allegedly experienced sexual assault. She discovered her pregnancy on October 31, 2026, and subsequently approached the police. An FIR was registered on November 2, 2026.
Following a medical examination, she was informed that she was approximately seven months pregnant. The matter was subsequently brought before the High Court.
The Court constituted a Medical Board at Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals to examine the petitioner and assess the medical implications of terminating the pregnancy.
The Board confirmed that the pregnancy had reached 28 weeks and that there was no lethal congenital abnormality. It also highlighted the possibility that termination could result in the foetus being born alive, requiring neonatal intensive care, with significant medical complications and mortality risks.
However, the Board acknowledged the possibility of grave and irreversible psychological harm to the minor if the pregnancy continued.
The report stated:
"The medical termination of pregnancy can be performed in view of the possibility of grave and irreparable harm to the survivor's psychological health due to mental anguish, psychological distress and emotional trauma to the survivor adversely affecting her mental well-being."
The Bench personally interacted with the minor and her parents in chambers. After being informed about the medical risks, the minor maintained that she did not wish to continue the pregnancy.
The Court also considered her age, family circumstances, financial difficulties and psychological condition. The judges noted that the family was not financially equipped to take responsibility for the newborn.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench emphasised the importance of reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity.
The Court observed:
"The right to choose whether to carry a pregnancy to term is firmly rooted in her right to bodily autonomy."
The Bench further clarified that if the child was born alive following the procedure, the hospital and medical practitioners would have to ensure appropriate medical treatment. If the parents were unable or unwilling to assume responsibility, the State would have to take charge of the child's care, rehabilitation and possible adoption through the legal process.
Allowing the petition, the Bombay High Court permitted the minor to undergo medical termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act and its Rules.
The Court specifically directed that the procedure could be conducted at J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, which had adequate facilities, subject to compliance with the medical protocol prescribed under Section 4 of the MTP Act.
The petition was accordingly allowed and the Rule was made absolute.
