This judgment does not decide the criminal case arising from the rape: an FIR stands registered at Police Station Khyala, and the direction to preserve foetal tissue for DNA testing is for that case. It does not lay down a general gestational limit for termination, and the permission rests on this petitioner's facts, including the Medical Board's finding that she was medically and psychologically fit. The order itself directs the procedure to be carried out under the MTP Act; it does not perform the termination.
- Case
- Minor V through grandmother M v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another
- Court
- High Court of Delhi
- Decision
- Bench
- Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Judgment by
- Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Case numbers
- W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026; CNR No. DLHC010512382026
- Outcome
- Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowed and disposed of on 24 October 2026; medical termination of pregnancy permitted subject to seven safeguards and directions.
Petition allowed; termination permitted with safeguards
On 24 October 2026, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition filed on behalf of a minor girl, identified in the order only as Minor V through her grandmother M, seeking medical termination of her pregnancy. The petitioner, a girl of approximately 17 years who is a victim of rape, was past 29 weeks of gestation, beyond the 24-week statutory framework of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The Court permitted the medical termination of pregnancy in the best interest of the minor petitioner, subject to seven safeguards and directions set out in the order. The petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, along with any pending applications, stood disposed of in those terms.
A 29-week pregnancy, a hospital admission, and a medical board's view
The petitioner was presently admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi, for care and supervision of the pregnancy, which was stated to be at approximately 29 weeks of gestation and conceived from rape. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the petitioner and her grandmother were desirous of terminating the pregnancy, since its continuation would cause grave mental injury and psychological trauma to the petitioner, having regard to her tender age and the circumstances in which the pregnancy was conceived.
The petitioner invoked her right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, contending that rejection of the relief would expose her to grave mental injury and psychological trauma. The parties drew the Court's attention to the report of the Medical Board for pregnancy termination beyond 24 weeks, constituted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, which had found the petitioner physically fit for undergoing the procedure. Counsel for the respondent State submitted that appropriate directions could be passed as sought, keeping in view the Medical Board's report and the prevalent position of law. No other submissions were advanced.
The precedents: constitutional courts are not bound by the 24-week limit
Before applying the law to the facts, the Court surveyed decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Court in which termination beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks had been permitted. In S v. Union of India (2026 INSC 446), the Supreme Court had allowed termination at 28 weeks, holding that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32, constitutional courts are not constrained by the statutory limitations of the MTP Act and must primarily consider the welfare, dignity, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman, particularly in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies.
As quoted by the High Court, the Supreme Court had held in S that no court ought to compel any woman, and more so a minor child, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will, and that the absence of foetal abnormality, the advancement of gestational age, or the absence of a diagnosed psychiatric disorder cannot by themselves constitute grounds to deny termination. The High Court also noted the Supreme Court's decision in Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2017 SCC OnLine SC 2156), allowing termination at 26 weeks, and its own earlier decisions permitting termination at 24 weeks and 5 days, and at periods exceeding 27, 30 and 33 weeks.
Applying the test: age, reason, medical opinion, and the pregnant woman's rights
The Court held that the question of medical termination cannot be determined merely by the statutory period of 24 weeks, but must be examined in the context of the facts and circumstances of each case, including the age and the reason for the pregnancy, the medical opinion on record, and the rights and interest of the pregnant woman. On the facts, the petitioner was a minor girl of approximately 17 years, the pregnancy was stated to be unwanted and conceived from a rape against which an FIR had already been registered at Police Station Khyala, Delhi, and the gestation period exceeded 29 weeks as per the Medical Board's report.
The Court also recorded the Medical Board's express opinion that Minor V was medically and psychologically fit for termination of pregnancy. Having regard to the facts and to that opinion, the Court held that the petition should be allowed.
Seven safeguards, from the procedure to the child's future
The termination is to be carried out by a team of competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act and the relevant rules, regulations and guidelines, with a complete record of the procedure maintained by the Medical Board. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital is directed to preserve the tissue of the foetus for DNA testing, which would be required with reference to the criminal case that stands registered. The State is to bear all expenses necessary for the termination, the minor's stay at the hospital during that period, and the post-operative period.
If the child is born alive, the Medical Superintendent of the hospital, in conjunction with the State authorities, is to ensure medical support and every possible and feasible assistance to the child, with the child kept in an incubator; intimation is to be given to the Child Welfare Committee, from which further directions are to be sought as required, and, as per the wish of the minor and her family, the child is to be given in adoption as per the prescribed procedure. The identity of the petitioner and minor survivor is to be strictly protected: the authorities, the hospital, the Medical Board and all others associated with the proceeding must ensure that no particulars capable of identifying her, including her name, address, photographs and medical records, are disclosed, save to the extent authorised or required by law. A copy of the order is to be sent forthwith to the Station House Officer and the investigating officer at Police Station Khyala, and a copy is to be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: statute, constitution, and a case-specific permission
The judgment is an application of a two-track idea: the MTP Act supplies the statutory route for termination, but where that route does not cover the case, the constitutional remedy under Article 226 is not thereby closed. The Court's reasoning turns on three moves students should separate. First, the framing question is not the number of weeks alone but the pregnant woman's welfare, dignity, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy. Second, the medical record does real work: permission follows the Medical Board's fitness finding, not merely the petitioner's wish. Third, the order is deliberately complete about consequences, providing for expenses, evidence preservation for the criminal case, and the live-birth contingency through the Child Welfare Committee, rather than leaving them to a later dispute.
The limits matter as much as the permission. The Court does not fix a new outer limit, does not decide the criminal case, and does not suggest that every late termination follows automatically: each case is to be examined on its facts, including age, reason, medical opinion, and the pregnant woman's rights and interests.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act sets a 24-week statutory framework, yet the petitioner was past 29 weeks. On what basis did the High Court hold that a constitutional court could still permit termination?
- What role did the Medical Board's finding that the minor was medically and psychologically fit for termination play in the Court's decision, and what did the Court say would follow if a child were born alive?
- How did the Court use the Supreme Court's decision in S v. Union of India (2026 INSC 446) on the weight to be given to the pregnant woman's welfare and autonomy as against the interests of the unborn child?
