Woman's Decision To Continue Pregnancy Or Go For Its Termination: Allahabad High Court On 32 Weeks Pregnancy Of 15-Yr-Old
While dealing with a case of 15 years old pregnant rape victim, the Allahabad High Court has held that it is a woman's decision whether to continue pregnancy or go ahead with medical termination of pregnancy.
Allowing continuation of pregnancy after counselling the victim and her parents of the risks involved with medical termination at 32 weeks pregnant, the bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla held
“This Court is also of the opinion that a woman's decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself. This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme.”
Further, the Court held,
“Even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible and also to ensure that the child, being a citizen of this land, is not stripped of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution. Thereby, it is the State's duty to ensure that the adoption process, too, is carried out in an efficient manner and that the 'best interests of the child' principle are followed.”
Petitioner, aged 15 years (as per her high school mark sheet), was living in the house of her maternal uncle who filed an FIR under Section 363 IPC alleging that she was enticed away by a man. Upon recovery of the petitioner, charges of rape were drawn against the accused as also charges under Section 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were levelled.
Subsequently, it was revealed that petitioner was 29 weeks pregnant at the time of recovery. Even though the missing report was filed in June, and the alleged incident occurred in June, the Court noted that since the petitioner is 15 years old, the offence of statutory rape had been committed.
After 3 medical examinations of the petitioner by 3 separate teams of doctors, the Chief Medical Officer, in his report stated that though the continuation of pregnancy would impact the physical and mental well-being of the victim, medical termination of pregnancy at this stage was not possible without any threat to the life of the victim. On a pointed query by the Court, it was stated that despite the risks involved, the parents of the victim were consenting to termination of pregnancy.
Considering various judgments of the Apex Court where medical termination was not allowed at later stages of pregnancy, the Court counselled the petitioner and her relatives regarding the risks involved with termination of pregnancy at 32 weeks. Eventually, the petitioner and her parents agreed to continue with the pregnancy.
“The petitioner and the relatives upon being made to understand the risks to the life of the petitioner and future risks with regard to losing the ability to be pregnant, subsequently opted to deliver the child instead of terminating the said pregnancy. The girl and her mother were both of the opinion that they would like to put the child for adoption post- parturition.”
The Court directed the State to bear all expenses regarding delivery of child, including travel and stay of the family and the victim. Further, directions were issued to Director of the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to take necessary action in accordance with law for the adoption of the child which shall be born.
Case title - X (MINOR VICTIM) vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 447
Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 447