Delhi High Court - Orders
Minor S (Thr Guardian M) vs State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 18 August, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~104
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 2556/2025
MINOR S (THR GUARDIAN M) .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anwesh Madhukar and Mr. Ishat
Singh Bhati, Advocates.
Versus
STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC for the State
with Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Kshitiz
Gar, Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Ms.
Sanskriti Nimbekar and Mr. Vijay
Mishra, Advocates with IO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
ORDER
% 18.08.2025
1. On 14.08.2025, the present case was received relating to an urgent need for conducting medical termination of a pregnancy of a minor girl, aged about 14 years, who felt prey to sexual assault by her cousin brother, who is also a minor and is presently under the observation of Nirmal Chaya.
2. This Court vide order dated 14.08.2025 has passed the following order:
"Thus, it was incumbent upon the I.O. to have produced the victim child before the Medical Board of AIIMS, Delhi, and the concerned doctors, pursuant to the order passed by the CWC. The Medical Board, in turn, ought to have assessed the minor victim on the following parameters:
(i) The exact gestational period of the pregnancy of the victim.
(ii) Whether the victim is physically fit to undergo MTP?
(iii) Whether the victim is mentally fit to undergo MTP?
(iv) Whether it will pose risk to the life of the victim in case of MTP?"
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13
3. The victim, at the time when the present petition was moved for issuance of directions to terminate the pregnancy, was carrying gestational period of pregnancy opined to be of 28 weeks. The matter is listed today awaiting the report of the Medical Board with specific directions to report as to whether the medical termination of pregnancy was possible.
4. Dr. Vidushi Kulshreshtha, Professor, Deptt. Of Obs. & Gynae, a constituent member of the said Medical Board appears through video- conferencing. The report of the Medical Board has also been placed before this Court at 2:30 PM, answering the four issues on which Medical Board was to send its opinion. The issue-wise report reads as under:
"(i) The exact gestational period of the pregnancy of the victim.
The patient does not remember the exact LMP, but as per USG report done on 17.08.2025 at AIIMS, New Delhi, the gestational age is 29 weeks 2 days on 18.08.2025.
(ii) Whether the victim is physically fit to undergo MTP?
Patient S is 29+2 weeks gestation and has crossed the legal age for MTP. Her fetus is viable.
At present the fetal presentation is breech which would require preterm caesarean section for delivery. Preterm caesarean has higher future obstetrical implications, and if undertaken could adversely affect her future reproductive prospects.
Also, the baby at this gestation would be born alive and would require active resuscitation at birth. The baby would require long-term neonatal ICU care, including invasive ventilation, before being fit to be transitioned to care by the child welfare services.
Babies born at 28 to 29 weeks of gestation have a survival rate of approximately 75 to 80% at AIIMS, New Delhi. They have a prolonged NICU stay. During hospitalization, the child needs invasive ventilation, cardiorespiratory support and parenteral nutrition.
The baby may suffer from significant morbidities of brain, lungs, heart, intestine, eyes and ears which may have long term impact on the baby's growth and development.
The risk of significant brain disorders like cerebral palsy, motor delay, mental delay and blindness is around 10% in such babies.
The child may require early developmental support and rehabilitation post-discharge with the help of a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, and special educators, and may hear the sequelae of This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13 these morbidities for a lifetime.
The child and the guardian have been explained above implications of terminating pregnancy (delivery) at the present gestational age of 29 weeks 2 day by USG.
(iii). Whether the victim is mentally fit to undergo MTP?
On mental status evaluation, the child doesn't seem to have any significant psychiatric symptoms currently.
(iv). Whether it will pose risk to the life of the victim in case of MTP.
Termination (delivery) of pregnancy at this gestation poses risks related to preterm delivery to both mother and baby as mentioned above. Breech presentation would require preterm caesarean section with its implications on future reproductive outcomes. Continuing pregnancy will give the chance for spontaneous change of fetal presentation from breech to cephalic when vaginal delivery is feasible.
As per WHO-2024 adolescent mother aged 10-19 years are considered high risk pregnancy. requiring adequate antenatal care (ANC) and delivery at an equipped centre.
5. The patient has not undergone routine investigations done during pregnancy, which are now sent after admission. She did not undergo tests for fetal aneuploidy screening. She is presently anaemic and her treatment for the same has been started.
The Medical Board, after thorough clinical assessment, including obstetric ultrasound and psychiatric evaluation is of the opinion that the pregnancy is currently 29 weeks and I day and the fetus is currently viable (reasonable chance of survival even at the present time) with no gross congenital malformations."
5. The Medical Board, in its aforesaid report, has also opined as under:
"1. The prolongation of pregnancy for another 4 to 6 weeks until a gestation of at least 34 weeks or so would be in the best interest of both mother and baby.
2. The baby born at this gestation would need minimal ICU care ensuring not only survival but also a much better likelihood of optimum neurodevelopment thus making it possible for adopting parents to provide optimum care ensuring healthy and productive life of avoiding unnecessary suffering of the adopting family and the baby.
3. The Minor S and guardian have been counselled in detail, and they have shown their willingness to continue with the pregnancy for the next 4-6 weeks.
4. AIIMS, New Delhi is willing to register the patient for antenatal care to provide the medical care and support during this period. AIIMS will also conduct delivery at ti gestation and care for the baby keeping requisite confidentiality, with the mother's best interests in mind."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13
6. The medical termination of pregnancy has been opined to be not possible as it will cause considerable danger to the victim as the foetus is in breach position. It has been specifically opined that any preterm caesarean section for delivery or medical termination of pregnancy would pose higher future obstetrical implications, and if undertaken, could adversely affect her future reproductive prospects. It is also specifically mentioned that at this gestation period, the baby would be born alive. Through this report, the Court is informed that the child and the guardian were explained the implications of terminating pregnancy and that they have informed the Board that the child and the guardian were willing to continue with the pregnancy for the next 4 to 6 weeks in the best interest of the victim.
7. The learned counsel for the victim/petitioner is present before this Court and the guardian of the victim was present along with the victim in the hospital and also has appeared before this Court through video- conferencing.
8. Since, the present sole guardian of the minor victim i.e. her bua has decided to continue with the pregnancy for the next 4 to 6 weeks, this Court cannot direct medical termination of pregnancy against their will.
9. Considering the above, the prayer to direct the respondent nos. 1 & 2 to medically terminate the pregnancy of the victim in view of the Explanation 2, Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, will be infructuous.
10. This Court is also informed by the learned counsel for the victim as well as the Doctor Vidushi Kulshreshtha, who was part of the Medical Board constituted to examine her that the child does not want to remain This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13 admitted in the hospital and wants to stay under care and custody of CWC in which context the necessary directions to the IO concerned be issued.
11. It is stated by the State that the biological mother of the victim had abandoned the victim child and her father 10 years back. The father is also stated to have not been residing in Delhi for the last three years and is in Rajasthan. However, he has authorised the present guardian i.e. his real sister to take decisions on his behalf regarding the victim.
12. On instructions from the IO concerned, the learned ASC for the State also informs this Court that the biological father of the victim has expressed his inability to travel to Delhi, he has informed the IO that neither he has anything to do with his daughter nor does he want to take any decision with regard to the present medical condition of his daughter. The IO through the learned ASC for the State also informs that the biological father of the victim has informed that the guardian M of the minor S is her actual guardian being her real bua and will take all decisions regarding her, including medical termination of pregnancy or continuing with the pregnancy. The Court again notes that the biological mother of the minor child had already abandoned her ten years back.
13. As per the record received from AIIMS and CWC, the bua M of the victim S is the sole guardian of the victim, who has taken a decision alongwith the minor that they want to continue with the pregnancy, keeping in mind the danger to the life of the child. The Court remains conscious that the guardian of the victim thus is also mother of the accused.
14. In these circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate that the child being abandoned by both the parents and the mother of the accused being the only guardian with whom the victim wants to reside, with these peculiar This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13 background circumstances, this Court by way of abundant caution, deems it appropriate to hold that the child will be in need of care and protection under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and CWC is directed to independently interact with the child, obtain her opinion and inform this Court regarding the same before passing of a final order.
15. Since, the child is 30 weeks pregnant, it would not be in the best interest of the child to produce her before CWC as she will have to travel a long distance, it will be appropriate that once the child is lodged back at Nirmal Chaya after being discharged from the hospital today, having expressed her willingness to continue with the pregnancy instead of she being produced before CWC, the members of CWC will meet her in Nirmal Chaya and will prepare a report regarding her willingness to continue with the pregnancy, keeping in mind the report tendered by the Medical Board today. The copy of the report of the Medical Board will be provided by the IO concerned to the CWC members.
16. List on 20.08.2025 at 10:30 AM for placing the report of CWC before this Court.
17. In the meantime, it is also informed that the CWC has already appointed a support person in the present case as mentioned in their report produced by the IO, the support person is directed to ensure that all the assistance is provided to the victim herein till further orders.
18. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
19. Copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J AUGUST 18, 2025/A/vc This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/08/2025 at 22:37:13