JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Writ Petition, filed on behalf of Minor „V‟, through her grand-mother M, under Article 226, read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950^$~2 and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks, inter alia, directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to medically terminate the pregnancy of the Minor Girl ‘V’², in terms of Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971³.

2. By way of the present Petition, the intervention of this Court¹ has been sought qua the termination of pregnancy of the Petitioner, since the current gestational period of the Petitioner is stated to be beyond the permissible limits under the MTP Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that the Petitioner is a minor and is victim of rape, and is presently at approximately 29 weeks of gestation of pregnancy, conceived from the said rape. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is presently admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi for care and supervision of the said pregnancy.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that both, the Petitioner as well as her grand-mother, are desirous of terminating this pregnancy, as its continuation would cause grave mental injury and psychological trauma to the Petitioner, having regard to her tender age and the circumstances in which the pregnancy was conceived.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that the Petitioner seeks to invoke her „Right to Life‟, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, for seeking the medical termination of her pregnancy. It is contended that rejection of the said relief would expose the minor Petitioner to grave mental injury and psychological trauma.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties draw the attention of this Court to the Report of the Medical Board for Pregnancy Termination Beyond 24 weeks⁴, prepared by the Medical Board constituted at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi⁵, to submit that the Medical Board, constituted under the MTP Act, has found the Petitioner to be physically fit for undergoing the procedure for medical termination of pregnancy. Learned counsel for the Respondent, in view of the same, submits that appropriate directions may be passed, as sought for, keeping in view the Report of the Medical Board and the prevalent position of law.

7. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the parties by the learned counsel appearing on their behalf respectively.

ANALYSIS:

8. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material available on record, including the Report of the Medical Board.

9. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court deems it apposite to take note of various decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as also this Court, whereby medical termination of pregnancy, even beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks, as stipulated in the MTP Act, was permitted.

10. In S vs. The Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 446, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court allowed medical termination of pregnancy wherein the gestational period of pregnancy of the Petitioner therein was 28 weeks. It was held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Courts are not constrained by the statutory limitations prescribed under the MTP Act and must primarily consider the welfare, dignity, bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy of the pregnant woman, particularly, in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies.

11. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court recognised that reproductive choice forms an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and held that no woman, much less a minor rape survivor, can be compelled to c