The Punjab and Haryana High Court has affirmed that minor victims of sexual assault have a constitutionally protected right to access safe and timely medical termination of pregnancy, even beyond the statutory 20-week limit, provided a duly constituted medical board certifies the necessity. This ruling reinforces the primacy of bodily autonomy and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable survivors under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, a 17-year-old minor and her guardian, sought judicial intervention after multiple hospitals in Amritsar refused to perform an abortion despite the petitioner being a victim of sexual assault. The pregnancy, estimated at 7-8 weeks at the time of filing, had progressed beyond the 20-week threshold under the MTP Act, 1971, triggering procedural barriers. The petitioner alleged that institutional reluctance and fear of legal liability had delayed access to care, exacerbating her psychological trauma.
Procedural History
- 19 November 2025: FIR No. 184 registered at Police Station Ramdas under Sections 137(3), 87, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- February 2026: Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking termination and recording of statement
- 27 February 2026: Court issued restricted notice and directed the Civil Surgeon, Amritsar, to constitute a Board of Doctors for medical assessment
- 3 March 2026: Board of Doctors submitted report confirming termination is medically feasible and in line with the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought: (1) permission for medical termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act, 1971, and (2) direction to record the petitioner’s statement in the FIR to ensure proper investigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a minor victim of sexual assault, whose pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks, can be permitted termination under the MTP Act, 1971, when a duly constituted medical board certifies that continuation poses a risk to her physical or mental health, despite the absence of a specific provision for such cases under the original Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel relied on the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021, which permits termination up to 24 weeks for minors and survivors of sexual assault, provided a medical board approves. She cited X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi to argue that the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 overrides rigid gestational limits when health and dignity are at stake. The petitioner emphasized that delay was not attributable to her but to institutional inaction.
For the Respondent
The State did not oppose termination, acknowledging the medical board’s findings. The Deputy Advocate General conceded that the petitioner met the criteria under the 2021 amendment and that the state had a duty to facilitate access. No substantive legal opposition was raised.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolving jurisprudence on reproductive rights under Article 21, particularly the Supreme Court’s holding in X v. Principal Secretary that the MTP Act must be interpreted purposively to protect the dignity and autonomy of survivors. The Court noted that the 2021 amendment was enacted precisely to address the vulnerabilities of minors and survivors of sexual assault, and that the medical board’s certification fulfilled the statutory condition for termination beyond 20 weeks.
"The law must not become a barrier to justice for the most vulnerable. When a medical board, constituted under the Act, finds that termination is necessary to preserve the mental and physical health of a minor survivor, the State’s obligation is to facilitate, not obstruct."
The Court rejected any notion that procedural delays or institutional hesitation could negate the petitioner’s rights. It emphasized that the Board of Doctors’ report was conclusive under the amended Act and that the state’s role was ministerial, not discretionary. The Court also affirmed that the investigation into the sexual assault must proceed independently and expeditiously, without conditioning medical care on the outcome of criminal proceedings.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that a minor victim of sexual assault may terminate pregnancy beyond 20 weeks if a medical board certifies risk to her physical or mental health, as permitted under the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021. The petitioner was granted immediate permission for termination, with strict adherence to statutory protocols.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Medical Board Certification Overrides Gestational Limits
- Practitioners must now treat a medical board’s certification under the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021 as conclusive for termination beyond 20 weeks in cases involving minors or sexual assault survivors
- Hospitals cannot refuse termination on grounds of gestational age alone if the board has approved
- Legal challenges to such terminations must now focus on procedural irregularities in board formation, not the time limit
State Duty Is Ministerial, Not Discretionary
- Government hospitals and officials must act promptly upon receipt of a valid medical board report
- Delay or bureaucratic hesitation constitutes a violation of Article 21 and may attract writ jurisdiction
- SSPs and health authorities are now under a clear duty to cooperate with medical teams
Criminal Investigation Must Not Hinder Medical Care
- The recording of the survivor’s statement and investigation into sexual assault must proceed independently
- No conditionality may be imposed on termination based on the status of criminal proceedings
- Failure to record statements promptly may amount to secondary victimization and warrant judicial intervention
