The Delhi High Court has permitted a 16-year-old sexual assault survivor to terminate her 31-week pregnancy, holding that it would not be appropriate to expect a minor to bear and raise a child resulting from rape.
Justice Mini Pushkarna said termination of pregnancy in such circumstances must be viewed not only as a right of a sexually assaulted woman but also as a human right linked to the survivor’s dignified existence. The order was passed on a plea filed on behalf of the girl, who became pregnant after the sexual assault. Her mother and she had sought termination, stating that continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave mental injury to the minor.
The court relied on the opinion of a medical board, which found the girl medically fit to undergo the procedure. The court was also informed that she had been admitted to Lady Hardinge Medical College and Hospital in New Delhi. The Delhi government had conveyed that it had no objection to the termination in view of a report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act generally permits termination up to 20 weeks in ordinary cases and up to 24 weeks for specified categories, including survivors of rape. The pregnancy in this case had progressed beyond those statutory limits, requiring judicial intervention.
The court said that expecting an adolescent survivor to carry the pregnancy to term and assume responsibility for raising the child would impose an unacceptable burden. “Thus, it was held that it would not be appropriate to expect the minor rape victim to take the burden of giving birth and raising a child, especially in a situation where she herself is passing through the age of adolescence,” the court said, according to the report.
The order also addressed the criminal investigation arising from the sexual assault. Doctors were directed to preserve foetal tissue for DNA testing that may be required in the case. This direction allows the termination procedure and the evidentiary requirements of the criminal investigation to proceed together.
The State was directed to bear the expenses of the medical procedure. The court further ordered that if the child were born alive, the hospital’s medical superintendent would ensure that all possible assistance was provided. If the minor and her family wished, the child could be placed for adoption through the prescribed legal procedure.
The court directed that the identity of the petitioner and the minor survivor be strictly protected. The order places the medical decision within the framework of the survivor’s health, dignity and best interests while requiring the hospital and State authorities to safeguard evidence and provide care. The procedure is to be carried out under the supervision of the treating hospital and in accordance with the court’s directions.
