Primacy To Be Given To Victim’s Decision Whether To Terminate Pregnancy Or Not: Delhi High Court Allows To Terminate 22-Week Pregnancy
The High Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking termination of a twenty-two week long pregnancy.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that while considering the question of termination of pregnancy under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the decision of the victim whether to give birth to the conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy has to be given primacy.
The High Court was considering a Writ Petition seeking termination of a twenty-two week long pregnancy.
The Bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “Accordingly, in view of the above catena of precedents and the facts of the present case, the court is of the considered opinion that suffering of the victim cannot be compounded if she is forced to continue the pregnancy. Apart from above, victim is bound to face social stigma which may not permit the scars left by the defilement of her body to heal. As discussed, the decision of the victim whether to give birth to the conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy has to be given primacy.”
Advocate Rahul Yadav represented the Petitioners, while Advocate Rupali Bandhopadhya represented the Respondents.
Case Brief
A Writ Petition was filed for seeking termination of the pregnancy. It was contended by the Petitioner that she was in a live-in relationship with a man for two years on the assurance of marriage.
The Petitioner first conceived in 2024, however, was compelled by the accused to terminate the pregnancy through medicines. Later, in July 2025, she again conceived but refused to terminate the pregnancy. As a result, the accused assaulted her and thereafter abandoned her. An FIR was also registered against the accused under Sections 69/115(2)/351(2) BNS 2023.
It was submitted by the Petitioner that the pregnancy was over 22 weeks and unwanted, thus, its continuation would cause grave injury to her physical and mental health besides exposing her to social stigma. The Petitioner also submitted that since the pregnancy was beyond 20 weeks and an FIR was pending, the court permission was necessary.
Court’s Observation
At the outset, the High Court noted that the termination of pregnancy is governed and regulated by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which provides for a legal framework for termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners.
While referring to Section 3 of the MTP Act, the High Court highlighted that in terms of Explanation 2, for the purpose of clause (a) and (b) of sub section (2) of Section 3 of the MTP Act, whensoever any pregnancy is alleged to be caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
The High Court said, “Coming back to the present case and having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner, an unmarried woman aged 30 years, is carrying a pregnancy of over 22 weeks, which is the result of sexual relations established on the false pretext of marriage.”
The High Court referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court of India, wherein it was held that a woman's right to reproductive choice is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and that she has the sacrosanct right to bodily integrity.
Subsequently, the High Court opined that the suffering of the victim cannot be compounded if she is forced to continue the pregnancy.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and observed that the victim was bound to face social stigma which may not permit the scars left by the defilement of her body to heal.
“As discussed, the decision of the victim whether to give birth to the conceived child or to terminate the pregnancy has to be given primacy”, the Court held.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.
Cause Title: XX V. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8252)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rahul Yadav and Ms. Minakshi Yadav
Respondents: Advocates Rupali Bandhopadhya, Abhijeet Kumar, Amisha Gupta
Click here to read/download Order