Delhi HC lets 17-year-old rape survivor end 29-week pregnancy, says 24-week limit does not bind the court
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the statutory ceiling in the MTP Act does not constrain a constitutional court, relied on the Medical Board finding that the minor was medically and psychologically fit, and ordered the State to pay for the procedure and preserve foetal tissue for the rape investigation.
A 17-year-old girl who became pregnant as a result of rape, and who was more than 29 weeks into that pregnancy, has been permitted by the Delhi High Court to have it terminated. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar allowed her writ petition on 24 October 2026, five weeks past the 24-week outer limit in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, holding that the statutory ceiling does not constrain a court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when the survivor is a minor, the pregnancy is unwanted and the Medical Board has found her fit for the procedure. The judgment refers to the petitioner only as Minor V and her grandmother as M, and this report keeps it that way.
A petition filed through a grandmother
The petition was filed on the minor's behalf by her grandmother under Article 226 read with Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It sought directions to the State of NCT of Delhi and to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, to terminate the pregnancy in terms of Section 3(2) of the MTP Act. The court's intervention was needed because the gestational period was beyond what the Act permits.
Mr Anwesh Madhukar of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, appearing with three other advocates, told the court that the petitioner is a minor and a rape victim, approximately 29 weeks pregnant, and admitted to the hospital for care and supervision. Both she and her grandmother wanted the pregnancy terminated, he said, because continuing it would cause her grave mental injury and psychological trauma given her age and the circumstances of conception. He invoked her right to life under Article 21.
Counsel on both sides drew the court's attention to the report of the Medical Board for Pregnancy Termination Beyond 24 Weeks, constituted at the hospital under the MTP Act, which found her physically fit to undergo the procedure. Mr Amol Sinha, Additional Standing Counsel for the State, appearing with the investigating officer by video-conference, submitted that appropriate directions could be passed in light of the report and the prevailing law. No other submissions were made.
What the Supreme Court and coordinate benches have already held
Before turning to the facts, the judge surveyed the decisions in which pregnancies beyond 24 weeks have been allowed to be terminated. The anchor was the Supreme Court's 2026 decision in S v. Union of India, where the petitioner was 28 weeks pregnant. The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts acting under Article 226 or Article 32 are not constrained by the statutory limits of the MTP Act and must primarily consider the welfare, dignity, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman, particularly where minors and unwanted pregnancies are involved. Reproductive choice is part of Article 21, and no woman, much less a minor rape survivor, can be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term merely because the gestational limit has passed. The absence of a foetal abnormality, the advanced gestational age, and the absence of a diagnosed psychiatric disorder cannot by themselves be grounds to refuse.
Justice Shankar reproduced the Supreme Court's reasoning at length. The statute, the Supreme Court had said, codifies only a part of the constitutional remedy; “A lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy”. The suggestion that a woman who does not want to raise the child can give it up for adoption, and so must be made to give birth, was rejected as the wrong approach where the pregnancy is unwanted. And a court that insisted even unwanted pregnancies be continued would push women towards illegal abortion centres and more dangerous procedures.
The judge also cited Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, where the Supreme Court allowed termination at 26 weeks, and a line of Delhi High Court decisions: Minor R through Mother H v. State NCT of Delhi at 24 weeks and 5 days, where a coordinate bench said termination for a minor rape victim is not merely a right of a woman sexually assaulted but a human right affecting her dignified existence, and that it would be inappropriate to expect a minor passing through adolescence to bear and raise a child; Minor S (through Father B) v. State at more than 27 weeks; Minor S through her guardian B v. Government of NCT of Delhi, decided on 8 September 2026, at more than 30 weeks; and Mrs X v. GNCTD at more than 33 weeks.
From these the judge drew the governing principle: the question cannot be determined or restricted merely by the 24-week period, but must be examined on the facts of each case, including the age of the petitioner, the reason for the pregnancy, the medical opinion on record, and the rights and interests of the pregnant woman.
Applying it to a 17-year-old at 29 weeks
The petitioner, the court recorded, is about 17 years old. The pregnancy is unwanted and was conceived from a rape in respect of which an FIR has already been registered in Delhi. According to the Medical Board, the gestation exceeds 29 weeks. The Board's doctors had expressly opined that she is “medically & psychologically fit for termination of pregnancy”. On those facts, and in light of that opinion, the petition was allowed and the termination permitted in the best interest of the minor.
Order
The termination is to be carried out by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act and the rules, regulations and guidelines prescribed for the purpose, and the Medical Board must maintain a complete record of the procedure. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital is directed to preserve the tissue of the foetus for DNA testing in the criminal case. The State must bear all expenses of the termination and the minor's stay in hospital, including post-operative care.
If the child is born alive, the hospital's Medical Superintendent, together with the State authorities, must ensure medical support and every feasible assistance, keep the child in an incubator, inform the Child Welfare Committee and seek its directions as required; in that event, if the minor and her family so wish, the child is to be given in adoption under the prescribed procedure. The identity of the minor survivor is to be strictly protected: the authorities, the hospital, the Medical Board and everyone associated with the proceeding must ensure that no particulars capable of identifying her, including her name, address, photographs and medical records, are disclosed except as authorised or required by law.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent forthwith to the station house officer of the police station concerned and to the investigating officer, who must communicate it to the hospital's department and the medical officers handling the case. The petition and any pending applications were disposed of, with a dasti copy under the signature of the Court Master.