Can't Force 13-Yr-Old Rape Victim Into Motherhood: Orissa High Court Permits Termination Of 26 Weeks Pregnancy

The Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi termed the unwanted pregnancy of the minor as an 'unbearable burden' on her body and mind and remarked –

“Forcing a thirteen-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term would place an unbearable burden on her body and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing. While termination is not without risk, it prevents the far graver consequences of childbirth and forced motherhood at an age where such responsibilities are unthinkable.”

Case Background

The 13-year-old victim 'X' was born in 2011, who is currently studying in 7^th standard, belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST) community of Phulbani district. She suffers from Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy.

In August 2024, she was repeatedly raped by the accused. She did not disclose the assault to anyone out of fear. Subsequently, she experienced irregular menstrual cycles, body pain and abdominal pain. Her mother took her to a doctor, who found her to be six months pregnant. The pregnancy was discovered at a delayed stage, beyond the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('the MTP Act').

An FIR under Sections 64(2)(m)/65(1)/351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act was registered. A medico-legal examination was conducted on 11.02.2025 by the Medical Officer, PHC(N) Kalinga, Kandhamal. The report confirmed X's Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy.

On 13.02.2025, X was examined at the District Headquarter Hospital, Phulbani, where it was confirmed that the pregnancy had gone beyond 24 weeks. She was later admitted at MKCG Medical College, Berhampur, where it was found that carrying the pregnancy to full term and giving birth would pose a serious risk due to her young age, coupled with the fact that she is also patient of Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy.

Therefore, the father of the victim approached the High Court by filing this writ petition seeking a direction from the Court to refer her to a Medical Board constituted at MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur, to assess her condition and the risks associated with the pregnancy and allow the termination of her pregnancy, despite it being beyond 24 weeks.

Court's Observations

The Court on 25.02.2025 passed an order directing the Medical Superintendent, MKCG Medical College and Hospital, Berhampur, to convene a Medical Board within three days to examine the case of the victim and submit a detailed prognosis regarding the status of her pregnancy.

Accordingly, a Medical Board was convened in compliance with the order. After a thorough examination, the Board rendered a unanimous opinion, unequivocally stating that the continuation of the pregnancy poses a risk of life-threatening complications for X and carrying the pregnancy to full term would severely impact her physical and mental well-being.

The Court extensively cited excerpts from K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and relied upon X v. Union of India (2023) to hold that decisions as to abortion comes under the purview of bodily autonomy and reproductive choices, which is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also observed –

“A society that views abortion solely through the lens of regulation, fails to grasp its deeper significance. It is, above all, a matter of individual conscience of personal liberty, the kind of liberty that a just and democratic state must not only recognize but actively protect. The right to make decisions about one's own body is not a privilege to be granted at the state's discretion. It is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, one that no authority should presume to deny.”

In light of Section 3 of the MTP Act and the requirements enunciated in X v. Union of India (supra), the Court held, the present case squarely falls within the ambit of permissible termination.

“The continuation of X's pregnancy poses a grave risk to her life and would cause severe injury to her physical and mental health, as confirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Medical Board. Additionally, the pregnancy is a result of rape, which, under Explanation 1 to Section 3(2), is presumed to cause grave mental anguish to the survivor. Furthermore, X's Sickle Cell Anaemia and Epilepsy increases the likelihood of substantial foetal abnormalities.”

Justice Panigrahi emphasized that in such kind of cases, the ultimate decision rests with the individual whose body and future are at stake. He opined that the victim ought to be afforded the dignity of choice.

“It is a fact that in the present case, the individual in question is a minor, hence, her rights are being exercised by the guardian major. The role of the medical profession is not to dictate but to guide, to offer counsel where health is at stake, to intervene where risk arises, but never to stand as an obstacle between a person and their right to bodily autonomy.”

It was emphatically observed that the role of the Court, in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, is to intervene in a way that empowers the victim by granting her the authority to make decisions regarding her own body and future. In this case, the Court said, there is a risk of complications in both termination and delivery, but when the law is faced with two difficult choices, it must take the path of the lesser evil.

“In light of the legal framework, the medical opinion, and the fundamental rights at stake, this Court finds no justification to deny the Petitioner's plea. The law is not meant to stand in the way of dignity and justice but to uphold them. The medical termination of pregnancy in this case is not only legally permissible but also morally imperative,” it held.

Resultantly, the writ petition was allowed and the concerned authorities were directed to ensure the termination of pregnancy is carried out without further delay or obstruction.

Case Title: X v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 5396 of 2025

Date of Judgment: March 03, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Arnav Behera & Ms. Ankita Mukherji, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 37