Expanding Bodily Autonomy: Delhi High Court Allows Termination Beyond 24-Weeks for Minor Rape Victims Despite Medical-Board Dissent

1. Introduction

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Minor A (Through Her Mother S) v. State & Anr. (2025 DHC 5095) confronts one of the most difficult intersections of criminal law, reproductive rights, and medical ethics: whether a 16-year-old rape survivor, 26 weeks pregnant with a viable foetus, can be permitted to terminate her pregnancy after the statutory limit of 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended) (“MTP Act”).

Key protagonists were:

Petitioner: Minor A, represented by her mother S and assisted by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
Respondents: The State (through the Delhi Police) and another unnamed party.
Medical Board: All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi.

The Court was asked to reconcile: (i) the minor’s express wish, backed by her mother, to terminate a pregnancy caused by two separate sexual assaults, and (ii) the AIIMS Medical Board’s negative recommendation, predicated on foetal viability and potential surgical risks.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Manoj Jain exercised the Court’s extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction to direct AIIMS to terminate the pregnancy the very next day, issuing a series of safeguards regarding the medical procedure, preservation of foetal tissue for forensic purposes, cost-bearing by the State, and custody/adoption of a live-born neonate (if any). The Court grounded its decision on:

Presumed “grave mental injury” to the minor under Explanation 2 to section 3(2) of the MTP Act.
Fundamental rights to bodily autonomy and reproductive choice under Article 21.
Precedential authority permitting post-24-week terminations in compelling circumstances.

Consequently, the statutory ceiling of 24 weeks was relaxed in the case of a rape victim, despite the absence of foetal abnormality and notwithstanding medical-board reluctance.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

A (MOTHER OF X) v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr., C.A. 5194/2024 – Supreme Court permitted termination at 29 weeks for a rape victim. Served as the principal Supreme Court endorsement for extending gestational limits based on mental trauma.
Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Ors., C.A. 15378/2017 – SC allowed termination at 26 weeks for a minor rape survivor, highlighting psychological harm as a determinative factor.
Minor S (Through Mother M) v. State & Anr., W.P.(Crl.) 1804/2025 – same bench (Delhi HC) granted termination beyond 24 weeks on analogous facts.
Minor S (Through Father B), W.P.(Crl.) 1231/2025 – 27-week pregnancy terminated for a 15-year-old rape victim.
Mrs. X v. GNCTD & Anr., W.P.(C) 16607/2022 – Delhi HC ordered termination at 33 weeks due to serious foetal anomalies despite adverse medical opinion, illustrating the Court’s willingness to override medical boards.
Mrs. C v. Principal Secretary, H&FW Dept., 2024 DHC 6201 – restated that reproductive autonomy is integral to Article 21.
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 – foundational pronouncement on bodily integrity and reproductive choice.

3.2 Legal Reasoning Adopted by the Court

Statutory Framework & Its Limitations.
Section 3(2)(b) MTP Act caps termination at 24 weeks save for “substantial foetal abnormality.” Section 3(2)(b) read with Explanation 2 creates a legal presumption that pregnancy caused by rape inflicts “grave mental injury.” However, the Act is silent on rape-based terminations beyond 24 weeks when no foetal abnormality is present."
Invocation of Constitutional Jurisdiction.
Recognising the lacuna, the Court invoked its writ powers to uphold fundamental rights, citing Supreme Court guidance that constitutional courts may sanction terminations beyond statutory limits to avert “undue hardship.”
Bodily Autonomy & Mental Health.
Drawing upon Suchita Srivastava and later Delhi HC rulings, the Court held that a woman’s (or minor’s) decisional autonomy over reproduction is intrinsic to the right to life and personal liberty. The compelling psychological trauma of continuing a rape-induced pregnancy outweighed foetal interests once the minor and her guardian unequivocally opted for termination.
Evaluation of Medical Experts’ Concerns.
The AIIMS Board’s objection hinged on (i) foetal viability at 26 weeks 6 days and (ii) surgical risk. The Court noted the Board nonetheless certified the minor as “physically fit” for the procedure and had suggested a path should the Court permit it. Balancing the medical risk against mental trauma, the Court found termination preferable, provided detailed procedural safeguards were installed.
Public Interest & State Responsibility.
The decision mandated State funding for all medical expenses, preservation of foetal tissue for forensic use, and coordination with the Child Welfare Committee regarding adoption if a live birth occurred—thus combining individual rights with investigative and child-protection duties.

3.3 Impact Assessment

The ruling marks a significant doctrinal expansion in three respects:

It decouples post-24-week termination from the presence of foetal abnormality, grounding the permissibility instead in the mental anguish of rape survivors.
It clarifies that an adverse or reluctant medical-board opinion, while persuasive, is not conclusive; the constitutional court may override it in appropriate cases.
It supplies operational guidance on managing a potentially live-born neonate, setting a template for future courts faced with similar dilemmas.

Expectations are that:

Lower courts will rely on this decision to entertain similar petitions by minor or adult rape victims, thereby reducing procedural delay.
State governments may revisit Medical Board protocols to incorporate mental-health considerations more robustly.
Legislative debate on amending the MTP Act to explicitly cover rape-based terminations beyond 24 weeks is likely to be invigorated.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Gestational Age: The length of pregnancy measured from the first day of the woman’s last menstrual period. Viability typically begins around 24–26 weeks, meaning the foetus can potentially survive outside the womb with medical support.
MTP Act, 1971: Central legislation governing when and how pregnancies may be legally terminated. The 2021 amendments extended the upper limit from 20 to 24 weeks for specified categories of women but retained tight control beyond 24 weeks.
Medical Board: A statutory multi-disciplinary panel (gynaecologist, paediatrician, radiologist, etc.) whose opinion is sought for abortions beyond 24 weeks or where foetal abnormality is alleged.
Bodily Autonomy: The constitutional principle that every person has the right to govern what happens to their body, including the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy.
Writ Jurisdiction (Articles 226/32): Powers of the High Courts/Supreme Court to issue orders for enforcement of fundamental rights, which allows them to craft remedies beyond statutory confines.
Feticide vs. Live Birth: Feticide involves stopping the foetal heartbeat before delivery. In India, deliberate feticide at viability raises complex ethical/legal questions; hence the Court directed adoption protocols if live birth occurs.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has effectively prioritised a minor rape survivor’s mental health and bodily autonomy over statutory time-limits and foetal viability concerns. By doing so, it has:

Reinforced that rape-induced pregnancies constitute a grave constitutional injury warranting extraordinary judicial intervention.
Confirmed that medical-board opinions, though respected, are reviewable for proportionality against fundamental rights.
Outlined a pragmatic roadmap for medical, investigative, and child-welfare authorities when late-term terminations are ordered.

Given India’s alarming incidence of sexual offences against minors, this precedent will serve as a crucial reference point for courts, physicians, and policymakers alike, cementing the principle that the law’s primary allegiance is to the autonomy and dignity of the survivor, even where statutory text is silent.