Extraordinary Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Courts Can Be Invoked: Delhi High Court Permits Minor Sexual Assault Survivor To Terminate 27-Week Pregnancy
The petition before the Delhi High Court was filed by the mother of a victim of sexual assault.

Justice Manoj Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has allowed the medical termination of a 27-week pregnancy of a 16-year-old sexual assault survivor. The High Court took note of the mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of the minor girl and observed that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be invoked in such a situation.
The petition before the High Court was filed by the mother of a victim of sexual assault. The victim is a 16-year-old girl, currently at over 26 weeks' gestational period. The petitioner mother sought termination of her daughter’s pregnancy.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Manoj Jain said, “It is not difficult for this Court to comprehend and understand the grave mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of minor, on account of sexual assault in question.”
“There is no qualm with respect to the fact that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts can be invoked in such a situation and wherever found so permissible, the pregnancy can be directed to be terminated”, it further added.
Advocate Anwesh Madhukar represented the Petitioner while Standing Counsel (Crl.) Sanjay Lao represented the Respondent.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the medical report, the Bench noted that the pregnancy is currently at 26 weeks and six days. The fetus is also viable, with no gross congenital malformations. It was noticed that in view of the advanced gestational age, there was a higher likelihood of caesarean section, which might adversely affect the future reproductive health of the minor in question. The Medical Board had given an opinion of denial of such termination of pregnancy. However, it was also opined by the Medical Board that in case the Court considers permitting such termination of pregnancy, clear direction would be required for management of live fetus/neonate, particularly concerning the decisions on feticide (if permissible under law) or adoption post-delivery.
The Bench said, “MTP Act does not provide for termination of pregnancy over the gestational age 24 weeks, except where there is detection of any substantial fetal abnormality and, therefore, the minor is compelled to file the present petition, through her mother.”
It was noticed that the petitioner was subjected to sexual assault for the first time on the occasion of Diwali Festival in the year 2024 and was again, sexually assaulted by another person in the month of March, 2025 She remained completely oblivious of the fact that she had become pregnant and when she visited a doctor, she learnt about her such pregnancy. Even when the FIR was registered in the present matter, the gestational age had already breached the permissible limit of 24 weeks. “It is not difficult for this Court to comprehend and understand the grave mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of minor, on account of sexual assault in question”, the Bench said.
Thus, considering the fact that minor is victim of sexual assault and is not interested in continuing with the pregnancy in question, the Bench disposed of the Petition by directing, “The Medical Superintendent, AIIMS, New Delhi shall make necessary arrangements for medical termination of pregnancy of the minor and in order to avoid any further delay, while taking all the requisite precautions, safety procedures etc. let the abovesaid procedure be carried out tomorrow i.e. on 01.07.2025.”
“If the child is born alive, Medical Superintendent, AIIMS in conjunction with the State Authorities would ensure that every possible and feasible assistance is offered to such child. Intimation in this regard shall be given to the concerned Child Welfare Committee and as and when so required, the further directions be sought from Child Welfare Committee”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Minor A Thr Her Mother v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5095)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate (DHCLSC) Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate Prachi Nirwan
Respondent: Standing Counsel (Crl.) Sanjay Lao, Advocates Abhinav Kumar, Aryan Sachdeva, SI Neetu Yadav