Gujarat High Court Denies MTP Request at 26 Weeks, Mandates State Support for Minor Victim and Newborn: High Court of Gujarat

In a poignant and legally complex ruling, the High Court of Gujarat has declined a plea for the medical termination of a 26-week pregnancy involving a minor victim of sexual assault. While acknowledging the extreme trauma suffered by the minor, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar emphasized that the law requires a delicate balance between the rights of the victim and the evolving life of an unborn child.

The Path to the High Court

The petitioner, an uncle of the minor, approached the High Court seeking the urgent termination of the pregnancy. The minor, a victim of a crime registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and various sections of the POCSO Act, had been gestationally assessed at 26 weeks and 3 days. The petitioner argued that the pregnancy was a direct result of sexual violence and that the continuation of the term would cause grave psychological and societal harm to the young victim.

Medical Assessments and Legal Constraints

Upon the Court’s direction, a specialized medical board at GMERS General Hospital, Himmatnagar, evaluated the minor. The board reported that the fetus was viable, weighing approximately 900 grams, and that termination at such an advanced stage carried significant life-threatening risks, including potential infection and severe complications.

The Court noted that legal parameters for termination under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act), 1971, are strict once the 24-week threshold is crossed. Justice Suthar observed that there were no "substantial fetal abnormalities" that would ordinarily support a post-24-week termination request under the law.

Key Observations

The judgment reflects the court's heavy reliance on both statutory guidelines and constitutional considerations:

> "The health and risk factor of the mother (herein, minor) and even unborn child has right to proper care and nutrition as and when it is fertilized and has a right of protection from unlawful killing and if termination of such alive foetus is permitted, it would be nothing but foeticide."

> "This Court with due sympathy and respect to victim with heavy heart is of the opinion that termination of pregnancy as sought for cannot be permitted as it will lead to commission of another offence of foeticide."

Ensuring Support and State Responsibility

While denying the request for termination, the Court established a comprehensive framework of support to address the victim's immediate and long-term needs. The High Court’s directions include:

• Continuous Healthcare: The GMERS Medical College is tasked with the longitudinal care of the minor throughout her pregnancy and delivery, with specialized neonatal care provided to the newborn.
• Post-Partum Welfare: The State Government is ordered to cover all medical expenses, nutrition, and post-partum care for a period of six months.
• Adoption and Custody: Arrangements for the child’s custody will be managed by the Specialized Adoption Agency and the Child Welfare Committee, following a determination of the victim's wishes.
• Rehabilitation: The Court directed officials to assist in moving the minor to the Nari Sarakshan Kendra if she chooses to reside there rather than with family, ensuring access to vocational or educational training.

Implications for Future Cases

This ruling reinforces that the judiciary must strictly adhere to the legislative framework of the MTP Act. It highlights that even in cases of heinous sexual violence, the Court’s authority to override standard gestational limits is constrained by the biological viability of the fetus and the absence of life-threatening health risks to the mother. By mandating state intervention for ongoing care, the Court balances the rigid application of the law with a commitment to the fundamental welfare and dignity of the victim.