IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Nitin Jamdar, C.J., S.Manu, J.
X – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Represented By Secretary, Ministry Of Women And Child Development, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi And Ors. – Respondents
WA NO. 1786 OF 2024
Decided On : 08-11-2024
(A) Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Section 3(2) - Appeal against rejection of request for medical termination of pregnancy of a minor rape victim - The Medical Board opined that continuation of pregnancy would severely impact the minor's mental health - The learned Single Judge rejected the Board's opinion due to lack of a Psychologist - Court found that mental trauma is a relevant consideration and granted permission for termination. (Paras 6, 9, 10)
(B) Rape Victim's Rights - The court emphasized the need to consider the mental health of a minor victim of rape in decisions regarding pregnancy termination, referencing relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, mother of a 16-year-old girl, sought to terminate her daughter's pregnancy resulting from repeated sexual assaults, which was confirmed at 25 weeks gestation. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the minor's mental health must be prioritized, allowing the termination of pregnancy based on medical and psychological assessments. (Paras 9, 10)
Issues: The main issue was whether the mental trauma of a minor rape victim should be considered in the decision to terminate a pregnancy. (Paras 7, 9)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the mental trauma of a minor rape victim is a critical factor in determining the necessity of pregnancy termination, overriding the learned Single Judge's decision. (Paras 9, 10)
Result: The Petitioner is permitted to go ahead with the medical termination of the pregnancy of her minor daughter.
JUDGMENT :
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
This appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is filed by the Original Petitioner, challenging the judgment and order issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 37000 of 2024, dated 30 October 2024. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge rejected the Petitioner’s request, the mother of the minor survivor girl, to medically terminate her pregnancy.
2. The petitioner is the mother of a 16-year-old school-going girl. She has been subjected to repeated sexual assault. A crime has been registered at the police station under Sections 354, 354A(2), 354B, 376, 376(2) (n), 376(3), and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as Sections 4(1), (2) read with Sections 3(a), 6 read with 5(j)(ii), (1), 8 read with 7, and 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Neither the minor nor her mother was aware of the pregnancy until a Gynaecologist confirmed it. By that time, the foetus had reached a gestational age of 25 weeks and 6 days, and it was not possible to medically terminate the pregnancy without intervention of the Court.
3. The Petitioner stated that the minor is currently in her 26th week of pregnancy. Continuing the pregnancy will cause severe psychological trauma, and the minor's family is in a state of shock. Furthermore, the minor is not mentally prepared to accept and deliver the child. In these circumstances, the Petitioner approached the learned Single Judge by filing a writ petition for a direction to form a Medical Board under Section 3(2)(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act of 1971). The Petitioner requests that the Board shall provide an opinion and subsequently declare her entitled to the necessary follow-up actions for medical termination of her daughter’s pregnancy.
4. By an order dated 22 October 2024, the learned Single Judge directed the Superintendent of the Government Medical College, Thrissur to form a Medical Board to examine the minor. The Medical Board submitted a report stating that although the gestation period had surpassed 26 weeks and the ultrasound scan showed no anomalies, medical termination of pregnancy was most appropriate, as continuing the pregnancy would severely impact the mental health of the 16-year-old victim of rape, as conception occurred due to this crime. The learned Single Judge rejected the opinion of Medical Board regarding mental health on the ground that the Board lacked a Psychologist among its members. The learned Single Judge then relied on the fact that the foetus showed no anomalies and refused to order medical termination of the pregnancy. It was noted that if the minor and her parents wished to put the child for adoption, the State should take the necessary steps. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed this appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. Mithun Pavanan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K.P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, 1971 reads thus:
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, -
(a) Where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is , or
(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the opinion, formed in good faith, that -
(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnan
The mental health of a minor rape victim is a critical factor in decisions regarding pregnancy termination, necessitating judicial consideration.
The Court reiterated that the rights of minor victims of sexual assault must be balanced with welfare considerations in matters of pregnancy termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act....
A minor rape survivor's mental health is a critical consideration in granting permission for medical termination of pregnancy beyond statutory limits.
The court allowed the termination of a minor's pregnancy resulting from rape, prioritizing her mental health and well-being over the continuation of the pregnancy.
(1) Certain degree of risk is involved in every procedure for medical termination.(2) In view of urgency of situation, Supreme Court can exercise its powers under Article 142 of Constitution.
Point of law : Victim of Rape – Termination of pregnancy - since each day's delay would be crucial for the victim and the family, Court direct the Superintendent of Medical College to terminate the p....
The court ruled that a minor victim of rape may have her pregnancy terminated under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, if it poses a grave risk to her mental health.
The right to terminate a pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act is upheld as fundamental to the autonomy and dignity of a minor rape victim, despite gestational limits.
The court prioritized the welfare of a minor rape victim in granting permission for pregnancy termination, emphasizing health risks and legal considerations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.