The Delhi High Court has allowed a 15-year-old rape survivor to terminate a 30-week pregnancy, holding that compelling her to continue with a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault could seriously impair her right to live with dignity.
Justice Madhu Jain directed the medical superintendent of Lady Hardinge Medical College and associated SK Hospital to arrange the termination at the earliest, maintain a record of the procedure and provide the required medical care. The state has been ordered to bear the costs, including the procedure, medicines, investigations, hospitalisation, food and incidental medical requirements.
The court said that a child of 15 could not be reduced to the description of a mother merely because she had been forced into pregnancy as a consequence of sexual violence. It held that compelling a survivor to continue with such a pregnancy would fasten upon her the responsibility of motherhood against her will and amount to a serious impairment of her dignity.
The order addresses a legal and medical situation complicated by the advanced stage of the pregnancy. Under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, termination beyond 20 weeks and up to 24 weeks is permitted for specified categories of women, subject to statutory requirements. The court noted, however, that the fact that the pregnancy had crossed the statutory limit could not be considered in isolation in the circumstances of this case.
The court said the advanced gestation required greater medical caution, but could not by itself deprive the minor of consideration of her bodily autonomy, dignity and reproductive choice. It also held that forcing a survivor of sexual assault to deliver a child conceived as a consequence of the alleged assault could expose her to further and enduring physical and psychological trauma.
The medical authorities have been directed to preserve the tissue or foetal material for DNA identification and other purposes connected with the case. This direction links the medical procedure to the criminal investigation while requiring the hospital to maintain a formal record of the treatment.
The court also issued directions for the eventuality that the child is born alive despite the medical procedure. In that situation, doctors must take all feasible measures for the child’s medical care, after which the child welfare committee is to take further steps in accordance with law.
The order places the minor’s healthcare, reproductive autonomy and protection from further trauma at the centre of the decision while assigning immediate responsibilities to the hospital and the state. The next steps are the arrangements for the procedure, preservation of medical material and implementation of the court’s directions by the designated medical and child welfare authorities.
