Delhi High Court Modifies MTP Order After Minor Rape Survivor Agrees To Carry Pregnancy, Orders Free Medical & Psychological Help By AIIMS

A minor rape survivor, who had sought termination of her 27-week pregnancy, agreed before the Delhi High Court on Thursday to carry the child after AIIMS's medical board opined that the pregnancy be prolonged to 34 weeks of gestational period for the best interest of the girl as well as the baby.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal modified a single judge's order which had earlier allowed the 16-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy which was at 26 weeks and six days as on June 30.

The Bench took note of the second medical opinion report of AIIMS dated July 01 which said that the delivery could be done safely at the gestational period of 34 weeks with much less likelihood of the need of caesarean section delivery- as opined in the first medical report before the single judge.

The development ensued in an appeal filed by the AIIMS against the single judge order. The pregnancy of the minor victim is at 27 weeks and 2 days, as per the appeal.

In the first half of the hearing, ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for AIIMS and urged the Court that having regards to the totality of circumstances, the directions issued by the single judge for making necessary arrangements for medical termination of the minor's pregnancy is not only in derogation of the provisions of MTP Act but also run contrary to the medical opinion expressed by AIIMS medical board comprising of medical experts as well as a psychiatrist.

In the post lunch session, two members of the medical board, who are also professors at AIIMS, appeared before the Court and explained that the baby who may be born on completion of gestation period of 34 weeks would also need minimal ICU care for ensuring his or her survival and for much better likelihood of optimum neuro development which shall make it possible for the adopting parents to provide optimum care ensuring healthy life of the child.

The Bench noted that the medical report of July 01 also recorded that all the aspects were informed to the minor girl and the parents and that they were counselled at the hospital in detail, who then showed willingness to continue with the pregnancy for the next four to six weeks.

On request of the Court, the counsel appearing for the minor girl again explained the aspects to the survivor's mother who then stated that she was agreeable to the opinion of the medical board.

“Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the single judge and provide that the same shall not be given effect to,” the Bench said.

The Court directed that the minor girl shall remain admitted in AIIMS for entire gestation period of 34 weeks or even more if required.

“During this period, all the care and caution shall be taken by the hospital and the authorities to provide her all the medical and psychological help and facilities free of charge,” the Court said.

Further, the Court directed that in case there arises any requirement of admitting the baby to be born in ICU care or any other medical care for ensuring his or her survival, the said facility be provided without any charge.

The Bench also directed that medical facilities be provided by AIIMS to the minor girl as well as the baby which shall continue for 5 years without any charge.

The Court noted that the facts and circumstances of the case presented a very unfortunate, unpleasant and precarious situation where the Court has to ensure the welfare of both the minor girl as well as the child to be born.

“The care of both these lives does not merely require medical attention but also having regard to the socio economic cultural situation of our society, they will constantly be needing other forms of support such as psychiatric or psychological treatment or counselling and some financial support as well,” the Court said.

During the hearing, the survivor's lawyer told Court that the mother of the minor was worried due to the socio economic factors and that it will be difficult to get her daughter married in the future.

To this, CJ remarked:

“These unfortunate situations one comes across in different ways but one has to learn to live with it. It is unfortunate…. For preparing the victim to live a fruitful life in the future, we are passing this order. She will be given medical support and the help of psychiatric department…. For any society, life in any form is very very important. Every endeavour should be made by the State, its instrumentalities, agencies and bodies to protect their life for whatever price.”

The Court then directed Delhi Government's women and child department to file an affidavit giving details of the mode of help which may be provided to the minor victim as well as the baby to be born in all respects possible, including the facilities for free education, skill development or vocational training etc.

The Court directed the Delhi Government to file the response in two weeks and listed the matter for hearing on October 15.

Before the single judge, the minor sought termination of her pregnancy. Then, the foetus was viable with no gross congenital malformations.

The medical opinion in its first report had suggested that there was higher likelihood of caesarean section, which may adversely affect the future reproductive health of the minor victim. The request for termination of pregnancy was thus denied.

Allowing the medical termination of pregnancy, the single judge had noted that the minor was subjected to sexual assault for the first time on Diwali last year but did not divulge about it to anyone. It further noted that she was again sexually assaulted by another person in March this year, calling it an unfortunate situation.

Title: AIIMS v. Minor A & Anr 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 743