Rajasthan High Court: In an appeal against the Single Judge’s order which despite recognising the psychological and social challenges faced by the appellant, allowed to continue the pregnancy, a Division Bench of M.M. Srivastava, CJ., and Uma Shankar Vyas, J., affirmed the Single Judge’s order to continue the pregnancy.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the appellant, a young woman and victim of human trafficking and sexual assault, was subjected to forced intercourse, leading to physical and psychological distress. The incident occurred on 07-05-2024, and an FIR was filed on 15-05-2024 under Sections , , and of the , along with Sections and of the .
After learning of her pregnancy, the appellant and her parents filed a writ petition seeking the Court’s directive to terminate the pregnancy under the (MTP Act). A Medical Board was constituted to evaluate the risks and submit a report. Initial medical assessments revealed the appellant’s age as between 19 and 20 years.
The Single Judge directed a re-examination by the Medical Board after the first report was found inconclusive. The second report highlighted that the termination posed higher risks than continuing the pregnancy, however, the psychological well-being suggested that the termination might be favorable. Despite recognising the psychological and social challenges faced by the appellant, the Single Judge prioritised the medical risks and held that the pregnancy should continue. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant, through her father filed an appeal and emphasised on her reproductive rights and sought the quashing of the Single Judge’s order. The appeal was filed nearly a month after the Single Judge’s decision, further advancing the pregnancy and complicating the issue.
Moot Point
Whether the pregnancy of the appellant should be terminated despite the advanced gestation period (31—32 weeks)?
How to balance the victim’s reproductive rights, physical health, and psychological well-being against the medical risks of termination?
Addressing delays in seeking legal recourse for termination of pregnancy in cases of sexual assault.
Parties’ Contentions
The appellant argued that forcing her to carry the pregnancy was a violation of her fundamental rights, particularly her reproductive autonomy under Article of the . It was contended that the psychological and social impacts of continuing the unwanted pregnancy are significant and more detrimental. It was stated that the termination of pregnancy in the present case is consistent with the principles of the MTP Act, which aims to address the needs of victims of sexual assault. The appellant placed reliance on X v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare, and Meera Santosh Pal v. Union of India, , and emphasised on a woman’s reproductive rights.
However, the State contended that termination at such an advanced stage posed significant risks to both the appellant and the fetus. It was emphasised that the victim is now over 31 weeks pregnant, and any surgical intervention would involve heightened medical risks. It was contended that the Single Judge’s decision to priorities medical safety and allow the pregnancy to continue was judicious and based on the recommendations of medical experts.
Law Points
: Allows termination up to 24 weeks with medical and judicial supervision for pregnancies exceeding the statutory limit.
Constitutional Rights:
Article 21 ensures a woman’s right to reproductive choice and bodily integrity.
The Court must consider safety and welfare paramount in deciding such cases.
Court’s Analysis
The Court stated that “Victim of sexual assault suffers not only in terms of physical injury but also serious mental agony and psychological issues. Commission of such kind of offence on the body of a female whether she be minor or major leave permanent scar and it is only she who could feel the pain and agony.”
The Court noted that the first medical report stated that termination at advanced gestation posed “very high risk” to both mother and fetus. It noted that the second report stated that termination was riskier than continuing the pregnancy, however, psychological and familial considerations favored termination.
The Court reiterated that termination of pregnancy must align with medical safety, especially when the risks to life are significant. While acknowledging the victim’s psychological distress, the Court emphasised on the necessity of balancing these concerns with medical realities. The Court emphasised on the findings of the Medical Board, which concluded that continuation of pregnancy posed lesser risks compared to termination.
While acknowledging the appellant’s fundamental right to bodily integrity and reproductive choice, the Court prioritized her physical safety over psychological distress due to the life-threatening nature of the procedure at this advanced stage (gestational age 31—32 weeks). The Court declined the permission for termination, citing “very high risk” to the victim’s life at the advanced stage of pregnancy.
“We are not oblivious of the fundamental right of the victim of reproductive choice, nor the agony, stress and pain which the appellant would undergo in carrying pregnancy for few more months, at the same time, it has now become unavoidable as subjecting her to termination of pregnancy would amount to taking a very high risk on her life, which, this Court, as Constitutional Court committed to protection of life of citizen, would not allow.”
The Court noted that the delays in approaching the Court exacerbate risks and complexities and suggested legal measures to ensure timely awareness of rights under the MTP Act for victims of sexual assault. The Court further noted that the MTP Act, MTP Rules or any other law do not oblige the Government, investigating agencies or any other authority to ensure that a woman or victim of sexual assault, whether she is major or minor, is apprised of her valuable right to termination of pregnancy and hence, it eventually results in cases where termination of pregnancy is not possible without judicial intervention.
The Court directed the Registry to initiate a case to address, absence of proactive mechanisms to inform victims of their rights under the MTP Act, systemic delays and recommend legislative reforms for better implementation of the MTP Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s order to continue the pregnancy. The Court issued directions to ensure proper medical care and psychological support for the victim during and post-pregnancy.
The Court directed the Registry to register a separate Suo Motu cognizance case titled as, “In Re: Termination of Pregnancy” and list the matter for hearing in the next week.
[Victim Minor v. State of Rajasthan, D. B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 714/2024 in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16384/2024, Decided on 02-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Naina Saraf, Counsel for the Appellant;
Mr. Vigyan Shah Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yash Joshi, Counsel for the Respondents.
Buy Constitution of India
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .