Back
11-Year-Old Rape Survivor Can Terminate 24-Week Pregnancy:
The has held that an 11-year-old rape survivor , even after the 24-week statutory limit has expired, if the delay is not attributable to the petitioner.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while allowing the minor's petition for medical termination of pregnancy, ruled that the under cannot be denied merely because the circumstances fall outside the of the . The Court directed the authorities to carry out the termination immediately, subject to medical safeguards.
Pregnancy Discovered During Medical Examination
The minor, aged 11, had moved with her family from Reasi to Baramulla in for cattle rearing. She developed fever, vomiting, cough, and abdominal pain, and was taken to the , where an ultrasound revealed she was pregnant. Upon questioning, she disclosed that an unknown person had forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse during her stay in Kashmir. The matter was reported to the police, and the minor was placed in a shelter home. The accused had not been identified or arrested at the time of the petition.
Finds Termination Feasible
On , the High Court directed the Principal of , to constitute a to assess the feasibility of termination. The Board, after a multidisciplinary evaluation including gynaecological, psychiatric, and paediatric assessments, opined that the minor was physically and mentally fit to undergo termination. The ultrasound showed a single live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 22 weeks and 5 days as on . The Board stated that termination at that gestational age was feasible, though carrying increased , and recommended the procedure be performed in a tertiary-care facility with specialist supervision.
Statutory Limit Crossed During Proceedings
The Court noted that by the date of pronouncement (), the pregnancy had advanced to approximately 24 weeks and 2 days, crossing the 24-week limit under . However, it held that this alone could not defeat the minor's constitutional rights. The delay occurred while the Court was obtaining medical opinion and considering the relief, and was not due to any inaction by the petitioner.
Cannot Be Denied
Relying on the 's decision in S v. Union of India (SLP No. 14454/2026, decided on ), Justice Nargal observed:
"A lack of remedy under a Statute does not bar a . The statute codifies a part of the . If a case is not covered within the four corners of a statute, then, can the constitutional relief be also denied? In our view, in such circumstances, the ought to weigh all facts and circumstances from the lens of the party who intends to terminate the pregnancy."
The Court emphasized that the minor's tender age, the fact that the pregnancy resulted from sexual assault, and the 's opinion that termination was feasible were all relevant factors. It stated:
"The victim, being a minor child aged about 11 years, cannot be compelled to carry to term a pregnancy resulting from the sexual assault committed upon her."
Court's Directions
The Court allowed the petition and directed:
- The Principal/Medical Superintendent, , to make arrangements for termination at the earliest opportunity.
- The minor to have her mother or lawful guardian present during the procedure, subject to medical protocol.
- Psychological counselling before and after the procedure.
- Preservation of foetal tissue for and , given that the accused has not been apprehended.
- Confidentiality of the minor's identity and medical records.
- All expenses to be borne by the respondents.
The Court also directed that if the treating specialists consider referral to a better medical centre necessary, the respondents shall ensure immediate transportation without further order from the Court.
Implications
This judgment reaffirms that the constitutional right to life and personal liberty under extends to and , particularly for vulnerable minors. It clarifies that the 24-week limit under the MTP Act is not an absolute bar, and constitutional courts can grant relief beyond the statutory period where exist.
Case Title: | Citation:
