Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by Minor S through her mother (petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking urgent directions for the medical termination of pregnancy following repeated refusals by AIIMS, Delhi, to conduct necessary medical procedures without a court order, despite express consent from the Child Welfare Committee and the victim’s guardian. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., directed AIIMS to immediately carry out the medical termination of pregnancy, having found critical lapses in medical protocol, conflicting gestational assessments, and unwarranted procedural hurdles such as the insistence on identity proof and ossification testing during pregnancy.
An FIR was registered on 11-05-2025 under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 based on the statement of the minor victim, ‘S’, who alleged that accused ‘A’ had sexually assaulted her multiple times under the false promise of marriage, resulting in her pregnancy. On the same day, the victim was taken to the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi, for a medical examination. The Medico-Legal Certificate (MLC) confirmed a positive Urine Pregnancy Test (UPT) and recorded that the victim had initially declined a gynecological examination, providing biological samples, or terminating her pregnancy. Additionally, the victim reported physical violence, including being burnt with a lighter by the accused.
Despite the urgency, the hospital staff refused to conduct an ultrasound on 11-05-2025, because the victim did not possess an identity card, even though an Investigating Officer (IO) of the Delhi Police had brought her with the official case file. On 13-05-2025, the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), after interacting with the victim and her mother (both consenting to MTP), directed the IO to ensure the procedure was carried out at AIIMS without delay. However, on 14-05-2025, AIIMS again turned the petitioner away, reiterating their refusal to conduct the ultrasound or proceed with MTP due to the lack of identity documents. The hospital also insisted on an ossification test for age verification, despite being aware of her pregnancy, which is concerning as radiological procedures are generally contraindicated during pregnancy. An application for the test was moved before the Trial Court, and the date was fixed for May 26, 2025.
Following a telephonic request from a CWC member, the IO approached the hospital again on 22-05-2025. The hospital scheduled the ultrasound for 24-05-2025, which was finally conducted, confirming a pregnancy of approximately 25 weeks and 4 days. The doctor’s order explicitly noted the absence of an ID card as the reason for the earlier delay. Subsequently, the victim was not examined by a Medical Board, as the doctor opined that a court order was required since the pregnancy exceeded 24 weeks.
The Court observed several critical systemic and procedural shortcomings throughout the case like insistence on Identity Proof for ultrasound. AIIMS initially declined to conduct an ultrasound due to the absence of the victim’s identity card, citing the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PC&PNDT Act) and its rules, which require Form F and institutional protocol for ID card attachment. The Court found this problematic, especially since the IO had brought the victim with the official case file.
The Court further noted that despite previous judgments by the same Court in Minor R v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 383, Minor L v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7159, and Minor S v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2506 and subsequent compliance reports from the Union of India and GNCTD, which mandated the constitution of permanent Medical Boards in Delhi hospitals for MTP cases involving sexual assault victims beyond 24 weeks gestation, AIIMS still insisted on a court order before constituting a Medical Board or proceeding with the examination. The Court expressed strong displeasure at this non-compliance, noting that such delays endanger the victim’s physical and mental well-being and reduce the feasibility of MTP. The hospital’s recommendation for an ossification test to determine the victim’s age, despite the FIR stating she was 17 and her own statement of being 18, was criticized. The Court noted that ossification tests provide only an approximate age range with a margin of error and are generally contraindicated during pregnancy due to radiological procedures. The Court emphasized that the central issue should have been the urgent ultrasound and MTP assessment, not age determination, which further delayed essential medical steps.
The Court observed that a significant discrepancy arose when the first ultrasound on 24-05- 2025, reported a gestational age of 25 weeks and 4 days, necessitating a court order. However, just four days later, on May 28, a second ultrasound conducted after the Court’s intervention reported 23 weeks and 4 days, with the hospital then stating no court order was required. The Court found the explanation for this 18-day difference (medically acceptable variation of 10-14 days) insufficient, especially given its critical impact on legal requirements for MTP. This inconsistency raised questions about the reliability of initial reports and the care with which they were prepared, placing courts in a difficult position regarding which reports to trust. The initial Medical Board report dated 28-05-2025, was deemed incomplete as it failed to provide essential information required by the Court, such as whether the victim was physically and mentally fit for MTP and whether the procedure would pose a risk to her life. The Court stressed the need for comprehensive reports covering these vital aspects.
The Court passed several crucial directions and held the following:
- Immediate MTP for the Victim: Considering the urgency and the final clarification from the Medical Board that MTP would not endanger the minor victim’s life and her mother’s consent, the Court specifically directed AIIMS, New Delhi, to make necessary arrangements for the medical termination of the pregnancy on 30-05-2025, subject to all medical precautions and procedures.
- The Superintendent, AIIMS, and the Medical Board were directed to ensure the MTP is undertaken by competent doctors in accordance with the MTP Act, its rules, and all other relevant regulations and guidelines.
- A complete record of the procedure performed on the petitioner must be maintained by the Medical Board, and the tissue of the fetus must be preserved for DNA identification and other purposes related to the criminal case against the accused.
- The State shall bear all necessary expenses for the termination of the pregnancy, including medicines and food for the petitioner.
- If the child is born alive, AIIMS must ensure everything reasonably possible and feasible is offered to the child, and the Child Welfare Committee concerned shall do the needful in accordance with the law.
- The Court emphasized that all hospitals where such victims are brought must handle these cases with utmost sensitivity and care.
- The Court explicitly outlined the information required from Medical Board reports in such cases: exact gestational period, physical fitness of the victim for MTP, mental fitness for MTP, and whether MTP would pose a risk to the victim’s life.
-
The Registry of the Court was directed to list this matter for compliance reports from the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Health & Family Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi, and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, on 16-07-025. The Registrar General was also requested to get the judgment translated into Hindi and uploaded on the website.
[Minor S v. State, W.P. (CRL.) 1804/2025, decided on 29-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC), Ms. Prachi Nirwan Mr. Ishat Singh Mr. Pranjal Shekhar, Advocates, along with mother of the minor/petitioner.
Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC (Crl.), Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Advocates. Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain (Panel Counsel-AIIMS) with Dr Swati Tomar, AIIMS / R-2
