Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Timely Abortions For Minor Rape Survivors; Stresses Duty Of Courts And State To Prevent Re-Victimisation

The Delhi High Court has held that the right of a minor rape survivor to undergo medical termination of pregnancy is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that judicial delay or bureaucratic inaction must not frustrate this right. Directing immediate termination of a 28-week pregnancy, the Court stressed that hospitals, police, and the judiciary must work in coordination to safeguard the physical and psychological welfare of the child.

A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases of such nature, one of the paramount duties of the Court, the State and all stakeholders, is to ensure that the choice of a rape victim/minor for abortion, in cases where it is permissible under law, does not become an illusory right and is not frustrated due to delay or due to the inaction on the part of any of the stakeholders including Courts.”

The Court added, “In such cases, the Court has to step into the shoes of parens patriae and ensure that the protective environment for the victim is ensured and that the victim is not re-victimized or re-traumatized during the legal proceedings.”

Advocate Anwesh Madhukar appeared for the Petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel Anmol Sinha represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was a 16-year-old minor girl who became pregnant after being repeatedly raped by a known individual. An FIR was registered under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of IPC, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Since the pregnancy had crossed 28 weeks, the Petitioner, through her mother, approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission for medical termination under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The matter was heard urgently, and the Court constituted a Medical Board at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital to assess whether medical termination could be permitted. The Medical Board examined the minor and submitted a detailed report. It confirmed that while there was no congenital anomaly in the foetus, the minor was mentally and physically fit for the procedure and that continuation of pregnancy may cause grave mental and psychological anguish to her.

The minor, upon consultation, expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy. Her mother also supported the decision and undertook to accompany and care for the child.

Reasoning of the Court

At the outset, the Court reiterated the principle that statutory limits under the MTP Act must be read harmoniously with the constitutional right to dignity, autonomy, and mental health under Article 21, particularly in cases of rape survivors. The Court noted, “This Court is of the opinion that in cases of such nature, one of the paramount duties of the Court, the State and all stakeholders, is to ensure that the choice of a rape victim/minor for abortion, in cases where it is permissible under law, does not become an illusory right and is not frustrated due to delay or due to the inaction on the part of any of the stakeholders including Courts.”

After analysing the Medical Board’s report and the minor’s unequivocal wish to terminate, the Court found no hesitation in allowing the procedure. “In the present case, the pregnancy of the minor victim is a result of rape. As per the report of the medical board constituted by LNJP Hospital, continuation of pregnancy may cause grave mental and psychological anguish to the minor victim”, it added.

The Bench observed, “The mother of the victim is also willing to support her daughter’s decision of medical termination of pregnancy. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the minor victim, her guardian and the medical board are unanimous in the opinion that the pregnancy be terminated.”

The Court invoked its constitutional guardianship over minors in need of protection, stating, “In such cases, the Court has to step into the shoes of parens patriae and ensure that the protective environment for the victim is ensured and that the victim is not re-victimized or re-traumatized during the legal proceedings.”

Addressing the legal framework, the Court referred to Section 3(2B) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003, and held that termination beyond 24 weeks is permissible with judicial approval in cases of rape survivors, particularly where mental trauma is evident.

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2022) wherein the Apex Court had had clarified that the right to reproductive autonomy flows from Article 21 and applies equally to minors and unmarried women, and further that the term “change in marital status” in Rule 3B must be interpreted to include unmarried women.

Recognizing the trauma faced by child victims of sexual assault, the Court issued strong words against institutional indifference, the Court noted, “In many such cases, if the relevant stakeholders including the Courts do not act urgently, there may be cases where by the time such victims approach the Court, their right to abortion may be rendered redundant.”

The Court went further to stress that such pregnancies should not become “a second trauma” for the victim, stating, “The Court, therefore, is mindful that such pregnancies in case of minors who are victims of rape, if not terminated, may become a second trauma, of being forced to carry the pregnancy to term and suffer the physical, mental and psychological agony which may haunt her for the rest of her life.”

Accordingly, the Court passed the following directions:

1. The Medical Superintendent, LNJP Hospital, Delhi was directed to carry out the medical termination of pregnancy of the minor victim, aged about 16 years, at the earliest, in accordance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The necessary safeguards, medical procedures, and counselling, as required, were to be provided to the minor before and after the procedure.
2. The Court further directed the Medical Superintendent to ensure that counselling sessions were conducted with the minor both before and after the termination.
3. It was ordered that the minor victim and her mother were to be present at LNJP Hospital for the procedure.
4. Additionally, the Medical Superintendent was directed to file a compliance report before the Court on the next date of hearing.
5. The SHO was directed to ensure safe escort of the minor and her mother to the hospital and to provide necessary police protection.

Cause Title: Minor S (Thr. Mother M) v. State & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4803)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC); Advocates Prachi Nirwan, Ishat Singh, Pranjal Shekhar

Respondents: ASC (Crl) Anmol Sinha; Advocates Ashvini Kumar, Kshitiz Garg, Satya Ranjan Swain