Abortion Laws for Minors Pregnant Beyond 24 Weeks: A Legal Analysis

The Legal Framework Under the MTP Act

When a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, lawyers encounter a statutory structure that offers limited explicit pathways. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, amended in 2021, establishes graduated thresholds based on gestational age and the circumstances of conception.

Under Section 3(2)(a), a single registered medical practitioner may terminate a pregnancy up to 20 weeks where continuing the pregnancy risks the woman's life or causes grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there exists a substantial risk of serious fetal abnormality.

For pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks, Section 3(2)(b) requires the opinion of two registered medical practitioners. Crucially, the woman must belong to a category prescribed under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003. Rule 3B expressly includes survivors of rape or sexual assault. Explanation 2 to Section 3(2) creates an important presumption: where pregnancy is alleged to have been caused by rape, the anguish is presumed to constitute grave injury to mental health. This presumption operates in favour of minor rape survivors.

The Gap Beyond 24 Weeks

The MTP Act does not explicitly address termination beyond 24 weeks except under Section 5, which permits termination to save the pregnant woman's life. For minors pregnant beyond 24 weeks, this statutory gap has required judicial intervention.

Section 2(c) defines a "minor" as a person under 18 years. The intersection of minority, sexual assault, and advanced pregnancy has produced a body of jurisprudence where courts have stepped in to fill legislative silence.

Constitutional Foundations: The Right to Choose

The Supreme Court's reasoning in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) established that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21. This principle has been repeatedly affirmed in cases involving minor rape survivors.

In Ms. Z v. State of Bihar (2018), the Court permitted termination at 26 weeks for a minor rape survivor, recognising that forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term would compound her trauma. The Court directed the constitution of a medical board to assess feasibility and potential risks.

Recent Judgments: A Compassionate Approach

The Supreme Court's recent decisions reveal a consistent pattern: courts are granting relief to minor rape survivors seeking termination beyond 24 weeks, subject to medical evaluation.

In X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept., Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2023), the Court examined the case of a minor rape survivor who was 27 weeks pregnant. The judgment reinforced that the "pro-life" argument cannot override the pregnant woman's right to bodily autonomy and mental health. The Court permitted termination after constituting a medical board to assess the fetus's survivability outside the womb.

The decision in X v. Union of India (2023), delivered on 16 October 2023, addressed similar circumstances. The Court balanced competing considerations—the minor's trauma, her capacity to consent to motherhood, and the medical viability of the fetus—and granted permission for termination with appropriate safeguards.

Most significantly, A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra (2024) clarified the procedure for cases involving minors. The Court emphasised that district authorities and medical boards must act expeditiously when approached by or on behalf of minor rape survivors. Delays in processing such requests effectively deny the right to terminate, as gestation progresses. The Court directed that medical boards be constituted within stipulated timeframes and that decisions be communicated promptly.

A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal No.827 of 2026, the Court had allowed termination of pregnancy of 30 weeks of a minor girl, since the continuation of pregnnacy was stated to be traumatic both mentally as well 12 as physically to the minor girl as it was an unwanted pregnancy.

The Role of Medical Boards

Courts have consistently relied on medical boards to assess whether termination is feasible and safe. These boards evaluate the pregnant minor's physical and mental health, the fetus's gestational age and viability, and any risks associated with the procedure. The board's opinion informs but does not bind the court's decision.

Lawyers should note that the composition and functioning of medical boards vary across states. Some jurisdictions have permanent boards attached to medical colleges; others constitute ad hoc committees. Advocates must be prepared to move quickly and seek urgent directions for board constitution.

In S v. The Union of India, Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 14454/2026 dated 24.04.2026, the Court observed that the report of the Medical Board itself considered the minor girl physically fit for the termination of pregnancy and her own willingness to have the termination in her 28 weeks of pregnancy, as also the potential harm in the event of carrying the pregnancy to term, hence the minor was permitted to undergo termination.

The Evolving Jurisprudence

The trajectory of case law suggests that courts will continue to grant relief to minor rape survivors seeking termination beyond 24 weeks. The governing principle is that a minor who has already suffered the trauma of sexual assault should not be forced to endure the additional burden of unwanted motherhood.

The law recognises that forcing a minor rape survivor to carry a pregnancy to term compounds her victimisation and violates her constitutional right to dignity and autonomy.

However, lawyers must be prepared to address judicial concerns about fetal viability, particularly as pregnancies approach 28 weeks and beyond. Courts may order procedures to attempt fetal preservation if medically feasible, but the primary consideration remains the minor's welfare.

The MTP Act's silence on terminations beyond 24 weeks for rape survivors has created a space where judicial discretion operates. Until Parliament amends the statute to explicitly address this gap, advocates must rely on the accumulated precedent and the constitutional principles articulated in Suchita Srivastava and its progeny.

Authorities cited

• S v. The Union of India, Civil Appeal arising from SLP(C) No. 14454/2026 dated 24.04.2026

• A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Others in Civil Appeal No.827 of 2026

• A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 6 SCC 327

• X v. Union of India (2023) — Judgment dated 16-10-2023

• X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Dept., Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2023) 9 SCC 433

• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1

• Ms. Z v. State of Bihar, (2018) 11 SCC 572

• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 — Sections 2, 3, 5