Not Disclosing 'Right To Terminate Pregnancy' Infracts Victim's 'Right To Live With Dignity': MP High Court Slams Police, Doctor In Minor's Rape Case
The Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the investigating officer and the treating doctor after they failed to duly inform family members of a minor rape victim about the right to terminate pregnancy within 22 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasised that most of the rape cases occur in remote areas...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court came down heavily on the investigating officer and the treating doctor after they failed to duly inform family members of a minor rape victim about the right to terminate pregnancy within 22 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
The single-judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasised that most of the rape cases occur in remote areas where the victims or their families would probably be unaware of the safeguards granted by the Act of 1971. Indisputably, it is incumbent upon the treating doctor as well as the officer of the police station concerned to inform the victim/ victim's family about the right to terminate pregnancy before 22 weeks, the bench sitting at Indore observed.
“…This court is of the considered opinion that non-disclosure of such information to the victim infringes upon her right to live with dignity as enshrined under Art.21 of the Constitution of India, and at the same time it also defeats the very purpose for which the Act of 1971 was enacted”, Justice Abhyankar added.
The court termed the conduct of the doctor and the officer as 'apathetic' and 'deplorable' and censured them for their outight failure to inform the petitioner's father about the risks involved in continuing his minor daughter's pregnancy and the necessity of getting it terminated immediately.
Though the medical termination had already been carried out on 17.04.2024, soon after the court instructed the doctor to carry out the same once the haemoglobin level of the victim improved, Justice Abhyankar was concerned by the one-month delay in approaching the High Court. The court found out that the victim was abducted by the accused on 28th January. Afterwards, the doctors conducted her MLC on the same date as her recovery, i.e., on 01.03.2024. Even though the pregnancy was detected as far back as the beginning of April, the writ petition seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy was filed only on 08.04.2024 at 22 weeks of gestation. The court attributed the delay to the non-disclosure of information about the girl's pregnancy and possible recourses to the petitioner-father/ other responsible family members.
To avoid such lapses in the future, the court also issued the following direction:
“….in all the cases of rape, where it is found that the prosecutrix/victim, whether minor or not, is pregnant, she/her parents must be advised immediately by the officer of the concerned police station as also the eating doctor, about her right to get her pregnancy terminated under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971”, the single judge bench strongly felt that such a direction was befitting to avoid 'last minute requests' for termination of pregnancies.
Details of such information given to the victim/family members must be specifically made in writing by the concerned officers/doctors to avoid proceedings against them under contempt of court, the court laid down in clear terms.
With a view to shield the rape victims from 'a lifetime of trauma', the court has instructed that a copy of the order should be sent to all police stations and government hospitals in the state to ensure compliance.
Earlier, the court had sought affidavits from both the treating doctor as well as the police officer to ascertain the efforts made by them to assist the victim and her family with the medical termination of rape-induced pregnancy. In the affidavit, the SHO of Rawti station merely stated that he informed the victim's father about the pregnancy on 04.03.2024 and directed the latter to inform him in case of delivery or abortion, as the case may be.
Though the treating doctor was not available to file an affidavit due to her transfer, the court was informed that the doctor intimated the victim's mother about the pregnancy after conducting MLC.
“….however, it is not denied that in the compliance report, it is not even stated that the parents of the victim were informed orally that she is pregnant and her pregnancy can be terminated”, the court noted.
After making the above observations, the court disposed of the current writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. Lucky Bijolia
Counsels For Respondents: Adv. Harshlata Soni and Geetanjali Chaurasia
Case No: Writ Petition No. 9585 of 2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 122