In Minor V through Grandmother M v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(CRL) 3348/2026, decided on 24 October 2026, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition seeking medical termination of a pregnancy of about 29 weeks carried by a minor rape survivor, aged about 17. The judgment holds that the 24-week outer limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 does not restrict the constitutional court, which must instead weigh the age of the pregnant person, the circumstances of conception, the medical opinion on record and her own clearly expressed will.
The petition and its urgency
The petition was moved under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by a girl of about 17 years, acting through her grandmother. An FIR stood registered at Police Station Khyala in respect of the sexual assault from which the pregnancy resulted, and the minor was under the care of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. By the time the matter reached the Court, the pregnancy had advanced to roughly 29 weeks — well past the 24-week ceiling that Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 sets for registered medical practitioners acting on their own authority.
Both the minor and her grandmother were unequivocal: continuation of the pregnancy would inflict serious mental injury and lasting psychological trauma. A Medical Board constituted at the hospital examined her and reported that she was physically fit for the procedure, and, in the Board’s words, "medically & psychologically fit for termination of pregnancy."
Why the 24-week ceiling did not conclude the matter
The Court’s central holding is that a case of this kind "cannot be merely determined or restricted by the statutory period of 24 weeks." The statutory scheme guides registered medical practitioners; it does not exhaust the jurisdiction of a constitutional court dealing with the fundamental rights of the pregnant person under Article 21. The Court identified the considerations that actually govern: the age of the pregnant person, the manner in which the pregnancy was conceived, the medical opinion placed on record, and the rights, interests and expressed will of the person carrying the pregnancy.
The judgment draws on the Supreme Court’s recent affirmation that constitutional courts may permit termination beyond the statutory ceiling where the welfare, dignity and reproductive autonomy of the woman so require, quoting the principle 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." It also invokes coordinate-bench decisions of the Delhi High Court permitting terminations at stages ranging from 24 to 33 weeks. The doctrinal footing is summed up in one line of the judgment: "a lack of remedy under a statute does not bar a constitutional remedy."
The directions
1. Permission
Termination of the pregnancy was permitted in the minor’s best interest, to be carried out by competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act, the Rules and prescribed guidelines.
2. Records
The Medical Board must maintain a complete record of the procedure performed.
3. Evidence preservation
Foetal tissue is to be preserved for DNA testing, so that the termination does not impair the investigation and trial of the offence.
4. Costs on the State
All expenses of the termination, the hospital stay and post-operative care are to be borne by the State.
5. Live-birth contingency
If the child is born alive, medical support must be extended and the Child Welfare Committee informed; adoption, if desired, follows the prescribed procedure.
6. Identity protection
No detail capable of identifying the minor — name, address, photographs or medical records — may be disclosed except as authorised by law.
A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the SHO and the Investigating Officer of Police Station Khyala, who is to communicate it to the treating medical officers.
Why the decision matters in practice
For practitioners advising survivors and their families, three features of the judgment deserve attention. First, speed matters more than form: these petitions are heard on a writ footing precisely because every week of delay narrows the medical options, and courts in Delhi routinely constitute or act upon Medical Board reports within days. Second, the Medical Board’s opinion is the fulcrum — a report addressing both physical fitness and psychological state gives the court the material on which permission beyond 24 weeks can rest. Third, the standard directions now form a recognisable template: preservation of foetal tissue for the criminal case, State-borne costs, the live-birth protocol and strict identity protection travel together with the permission.
The judgment also illustrates the interface between the criminal process and medical law. The FIR and the ongoing investigation did not merely form the background; they shaped the relief, with the Court ensuring that the DNA evidence relevant to the prosecution survives the procedure. The writ court thus protected the survivor’s autonomy without compromising the trial that is to come.
Petitions of this nature are heard with the urgency they deserve, but the paperwork must be ready on day one: the FIR, the medico-legal record, proof of age, the guardian’s authorisation where the survivor is a minor, and any existing medical opinion. A complete file is often the difference between an order on the first listing and a week lost to a fresh Medical Board reference.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the normal outer limit for termination of pregnancy?
Under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, as amended, termination is ordinarily permissible up to 20 weeks on one doctor's opinion and up to 24 weeks, for specified categories of women, on the opinion of two doctors. Beyond 24 weeks, the statute contemplates termination essentially where substantial foetal abnormality is diagnosed, which is why survivors approach constitutional courts.
Why did the High Court allow termination at 29 weeks?
The Court held that the statutory period of 24 weeks cannot by itself determine such a case. The petitioner was a minor, the pregnancy resulted from an offence under investigation, a Medical Board had found her medically and psychologically fit for the procedure, and both the minor and her guardian sought termination. Compelling her to continue the pregnancy would have caused grave injury to her mental health.
What safeguards did the Court build into the permission?
The procedure was directed to be performed by competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act, its Rules and guidelines, with complete records maintained. The hospital was directed to preserve foetal tissue for DNA analysis in the pending criminal case, the State was to bear all costs of the procedure and post-operative care, and the minor's identity was placed under strict protection.
What happens if a child is born alive in such a procedure?
The Court provided for that contingency expressly: the hospital and State authorities must extend full medical support to the infant, and the Child Welfare Committee is to be informed. If the minor and her family wish, the question of adoption then proceeds in accordance with the legal framework governing surrendered or abandoned children.