SC permits 30-week pregnancy termination for 18-yr-old rape survivor

The Supreme Court allowed an 18-year-old sexual assault survivor to terminate her 30-week pregnancy. A bench emphasised that a woman's right to reproductive autonomy is paramount and that the court cannot compel her to continue the pregnancy.

The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the termination of the pregnancy of an 18-year-old girl from Maharashtra, who was allegedly sexually assaulted and was 30 weeks pregnant, observing that a woman's right to bodily autonomy and reproductive choice is paramount.

A bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasised that the Court cannot compel any woman to continue a pregnancy if she is unwilling to do so. "Ultimately, the denominator is that the child is illegitimate and the mother does not want to bear the child. The mother's reproductive autonomy must be given emphasis. The court cannot compel any woman to complete her pregnancy if she is otherwise not intending to do so. We accept the submissions made by the counsel on behalf of the appellant. The appellant's child may undergo medical termination of pregnancy", the Bench observed.

A 'Serious Moral and Legal Dilemma'

At the outset, the apex court acknowledged that the case placed it in a serious moral and legal dilemma, as the pregnancy had crossed 30 weeks and the foetus was viable. "This is not an easy decision for us," the Court said.

During the hearing, the Bench repeatedly examined whether it could legally deny termination when the girl had clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue the pregnancy. "Can the court say no if she wants to discontinue pregnancy?" the Court asked. The bench noted that there was no medical report indicating a grave threat to the girl's life, either by continuing or terminating the pregnancy and said the core issue was dependent on her choice. "The question is whether she wants to give birth or not," the Court queried.

Court Questions Lower Court, Considers Social Trauma

The Bench also questioned the Bombay High Court's earlier decision on the issue, where it reasoned that the girl could deliver the child and later give it up for adoption. "Then why does she want termination?" asked the apex court from the counsels appearing before it.

In response, the counsel for the appellant (mother of the pregnant girl) submitted that forcing the girl to carry the pregnancy to full term would subject her to severe mental trauma, physical suffering and social stigma. "When she goes back to her area (her neighbourhood) in a full pregnant state, she will face trauma," the counsellor responded.

The Court then sought details of the girl's socio-economic background while assessing the real-life consequences of continuing the pregnancy. "Mother is a house-help and father is a security guard," the coubsels informed.

While acknowledging that such situations occur in society, the Bench reflected on whether courts could compel a woman to deliver a child against her will. "Even if she doesn't want to deliver, can the court say she has to deliver?" the Court again asked.

Weighing Rights and Unsafe Alternatives

The judges warned that forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies could discourage victims from approaching courts for relief. "Then they will stop coming to court. Instead, they will go to quacks and (sketchy) clinics," the Court said.

The Court also considered the submission that the foetus was viable and not suffering, but also acknowledged that the law could not ignore the mental and emotional impact on the woman. "So, who's right should we consider, the girls or the unborn child?" the Court asked.

Final Verdict: Reproductive Autonomy Prevails

After hearing detailed submissions from both sides - the appellant mother seeking termination of pregnancy and the State of Maharashtra, the Bench held that the determinative factor was the girl's clear refusal to continue the pregnancy, irrespective of whether the relationship was consensual. "We are not on whether the relationship was consensual or not. That is not the issue," the Court said.

The Court concluded that the pregnancy was ex facie illegitimate as the girl was a minor at the relevant time and that her reproductive autonomy had to prevail. "Ultimately, the denominator is that the child is illegitimate and the mother does not want to bear the child," the Court said.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court permitted medical termination of pregnancy, observing that the appellant's rights had to be protected and enforced despite the advanced stage of pregnancy. The Bench thus ordered the termination and noted that the same would be subject to the appellant giving written consent.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)