The Delhi High Court has issued robust guidelines mandating urgent and coordinated action when a minor victim of rape seeks to terminate a pregnancy—especially one beyond 24 weeks. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that the law’s purpose is to protect the survivor’s rights and dignity, not to create bureaucratic hurdles. The court underscored the collective duty of courts, Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), police, hospitals, and the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) to ensure timely and trauma‑sensitive handling of these cases.
The court noted with concern that victims often hail from socio‑economically disadvantaged backgrounds and remain unaware of legal avenues available to them after a rape resulting in pregnancy. Delays stem from confusion over procedures, lack of legal aid, and reluctance by hospitals to initiate necessary steps without court or identity documentation. To rectify this, the court ordered that once a CWC assesses a case involving a minor with a pregnancy exceeding 24 weeks, it must notify the DHCLSC immediately. This ensures that legal support is mobilized swiftly to approach the court for termination permission if required .
A central thrust of the directives is that hospitals must not require personal identity proofs when a survivor is brought in by the investigating officer (IO) or pursuant to orders from a court or CWC. The IO’s presence, along with basic case verification, should suffice for logistical and medical procedures like ultrasound and diagnostics. This addresses past delays—such as one involving a 17‑year‑old at AIIMS, who faced a 13‑day wait due to lack of ID and hesitancy to act without a court order—which the High Court found “troubling” and unacceptable.
Further, for pregnancies that cross beyond 24 weeks, the court emphasized immediate constitution of medical boards in government hospitals to assess the minor’s case, without unnecessarily waiting for a court order. Pregnancies beyond 24 weeks require judicial approval per the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, but the court cautioned that medical evaluation should not be stalled. The board’s findings, combined with the minor’s own wish, are to guide prompt judicial intervention.
In a reported case, the High Court found that AIIMS repeatedly refused to conduct an ultrasound or establish a medical board due to missing identity proof and contradictory gestational assessments. They even insisted on an ossification test to verify the minor’s age—despite clear police verification—thus exposing the minor to unnecessary delay and risk. The court criticized this procedural rigidity and directed immediate formation of the board, expeditious MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy), and proper preservation of foetal tissue for forensic purposes .
These guidelines are grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, protecting human dignity, bodily integrity, and reproductive rights. The court reiterated that judicial delay or institutional lethargy must not render these rights illusory, especially given the mental and physical trauma involved. They also invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in X v. Principal Secretary (2022) to reinforce that survivors of rape—whether minors or unmarried—have a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy that extends beyond the 24‑week statutory limit, subject to medical and judicial scrutiny.
Justice Sharma further noted that the court, under its parens patriae jurisdiction, must protect minors from re‑victimization by navigating medical‑legal execution effectively. The court emphasized that an unwanted pregnancy can constitute “a second trauma,” and upheld that the medical board's assessment and the victim’s express desire should be sufficient grounds for termination in such sensitive cases
Lastly, the Delhi High Court instructed that foetal remains from MTP procedures should be preserved for DNA or medical-legal purposes, a necessary step to support criminal investigations. Hospitals—both government and private—must appoint nodal officers tasked with coordinating medico‑legal responses and ensuring adherence to timelines and legal standards. The judgment, passed in early June 2025, reflects the court’s bottom line: legal procedure must facilitate, not hinder, justice for those already traumatized.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.