Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by a 15-year-old child, a victim of rape (petitioner) seeking termination of a pregnancy exceeding 27 weeks since the current gestational age of the foetus is beyond the permissible limits as prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., allowed the medical termination of pregnancy and issued directions to hospitals, CWCs, and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee to ensure that such cases are dealt with promptly, without awaiting court orders for medical examination.
The petitioner, a 15-year-old girl referred to as Minor S, was a victim of rape allegedly committed by her own cousin, the son of her paternal aunt. The heinous act occurred when the victim was left at home with her younger sister as her parents had gone to attend a marriage in Uttar Pradesh. The accused sexually assaulted her while her younger sister was asleep. The victim, traumatized and threatened by the accused, did not disclose the incident to anyone. It was only upon missing her monthly period and subsequent medical examination, that it was discovered she was pregnant, 5 weeks and 6 days along.
The victim was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, where her medical examination confirmed the pregnancy. The victim revealed the incident of rape to the attending medical officer and expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy. Subsequently, an FIR was registered on 09-04-2025 at Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi, under Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The matter was brought before the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), which directed that the victim be produced before Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) Hospital for examination and consideration of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP). However, LNJP Hospital verbally denied the procedure as the pregnancy had exceeded the 24-week permissible limit under the MTP Act, 1971 (as amended). Lacking clarity on jurisdiction, the family initially approached the Trial Court, which declined to entertain the matter. Consequently, the present petition was filed.
The Court was informed that despite the issuance of the directions as laid down in Minor R v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383 and Minor L. v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7159, that “medical examination of a minor victim of pregnancy of more than 24 weeks is conducted immediately in terms of MTP Act, and the report qua the same is prepared and kept ready when either the victim or any other person on her behalf approaches the appropriate Court of law seeking issuance of appropriate directions for medical termination of pregnancy, which is beyond the gestational period of 24 weeks”, confusion and lack of clarity persists. When a victim of rape carrying a pregnancy beyond the gestational period of 24 weeks is brought to a hospital for medical examination, the hospital concerned often insists on the production of a court order before seeking the opinion of the Medical Board regarding the feasibility of medical termination of pregnancy, where the victim and her family so desire.
The Court remarked that in the present case, the Medical Board constituted permanently, with a view to save the crucial time in such cases, did not follow the directions issued by this Court, and once again, in one more case, crucial time was lost from 09-04-2025 to 17-04-2025. The more distressing is the fact that the victim, a 15 year old child, remains admitted in the hospital, awaiting medical termination of pregnancy as the consent of medical termination of pregnancy by the mother of the victim had been given on 09-04-2025 itself.
The Court sought explanation from the Medical Superintendent of LNJP Hospital, as to why there was a delay of one week in conducting the medical examination of the victim despite the directions issued by the Court and circulated to all the hospitals including the present hospital and compliance having been filed regarding implementation of the said directions to be placed before the Court, by respondent 2, within a period of one (01) week from date.
Therefore, the Court passed the following directions:
i. The competent authority of LNJP Hospital, New Delhi shall make necessary arrangements for medical termination of pregnancy of the victim, subject to all necessary medical precautions and procedures etc.;
ii. The Superintendent, LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, and the Medical Board will ensure that the termination of pregnancy of the minor victim/petitioner is undertaken by competent doctors in accordance with the provisions of the MTP Act, its rules and all other rules, regulations and guidelines prescribed for the purpose;
iii. A complete record of the procedure which will be performed on the petitioner for termination of her pregnancy shall be maintained by the Medical Board;
iv. The doctors concerned shall also preserve the tissue of the foetus as the same may be necessary for DNA identification and other purposes, in reference to the criminal case which stands registered against the accused by the petitioner/victim;
v. The State shall bear all the expenses necessary for the termination of the pregnancy of the petitioner, her medicines, food etc.;
vi. If the child is born alive, the Superintendent, LNJP Hospital, New Delhi, shall ensure that everything, which is reasonably possible and feasible in the circumstances is offered to such child, and the Child Welfare Committee concerned shall do the needful in accordance with law;
The Court also remarked that “in the present case as well, it was brought to the notice of the Court that initially, the victim’s family had approached the Trial Court, which is not vested with the jurisdiction to pass any order for termination of pregnancy as required in the present case. It was only thereafter that assistance was sought from the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC), which eventually facilitated the filing of the present petition before this Court. This delay, occurring at a stage where time is of critical importance for a minor who is carrying a pregnancy of more than 27 weeks, once again highlights the urgent need for a better and coordinated mechanism to be adopted by all concerned stakeholders.”
Thus, the Court passed following directions to be circulated to all CWCs functioning in the National Capital Territory of Delhi and shall be scrupulously followed:
i. Whenever a minor victim of sexual assault, who is found pregnant with a gestational period of pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks, is produced before the CWC and is referred to a hospital for medical examination or medical termination of pregnancy, the concerned CWC shall forthwith inform the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) regarding the case, since in case, medical termination of pregnancy is sought and consent is given by the victim or her family, as the case may be, an urgent order from a Court of law will be required for such medical termination of pregnancy. The communication shall include the details of the victim as permitted under law (without disclosing the identity of the victim), the order passed by CWC, the copy of the FIR which is placed before CWC, when the victim is produced before it, by the IO and any other document relevant for filing a petition before the competent Court.
ii. Upon receiving such information, DHCLSC shall immediately take appropriate steps to assess whether any legal intervention is required, including the need to approach the competent Court seeking an order for medical termination of pregnancy which is beyond 24 weeks in case of a rape victim where she or her guardian seek medical termination of pregnancy. This will enable DHCLSC to take timely action, and where necessary, ensure that the matter is brought before the competent court without delay.
The Court thus, concluded that as directed in the judgment titled Minor R v. State (supra) as and Minor L v. State (supra), the medical examination of a minor rape victim carrying a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks must be conducted immediately by the Medical Board of the concerned Hospital in terms of the MTP Act, and the report be prepared and kept ready, without insisting the victim to first approach a Court of law for obtaining an order for medical examination by the Board.
[Minor S v. State, W.P. (CRL) 1231/2025, decided on 17-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC) alongwith Ms. Prachi Nirwan, Advocate for petitioner
Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC (Criminal) with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Advocate
