The Supreme Court exhorted the Union Government to consider legislative amendments eliminating gestational limitations on medical termination of pregnancy in cases arising out of rape, particularly where the survivor approaches the Court at an advanced stage of gestation.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was seized of a curative petition instituted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences seeking reconsideration of the Court’s earlier direction permitting termination of a pregnancy exceeding 30 weeks in the case of a 15-year-old rape survivor.
The Bench underscored that the statutory framework governing reproductive rights must remain dynamic and responsive to evolving constitutional and societal imperatives, with due primacy accorded to the dignity, bodily autonomy, and decisional freedom of survivors. The Chief Justice observed that the law must retain an “organic” character, sensitive to the exceptional trauma endured by victims of sexual violence, and cautioned that rigid statutory timelines ought not to eclipse a survivor’s reproductive choice, mental health, and constitutional entitlements.
Earlier this month, the Court had authorised termination of the minor’s seven-month pregnancy, observing that no individual could be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her volition.
Subsequently, a medical board constituted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences opined that termination at such an advanced gestational stage could potentially result in a live birth accompanied by severe congenital deformities and may expose the minor to substantial long-term medical complications, including possible impairment of her future reproductive capacity. Acting upon this assessment, AIIMS preferred a curative petition contending that continuation of the pregnancy for a limited additional duration could enhance the foetus’ prospects of survival, following which the child could be surrendered for adoption in accordance with law.
Appearing on behalf of AIIMS, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that medical termination at the present stage was clinically inadvisable and argued that continuation of the pregnancy would more effectively safeguard the interests and welfare of the unborn child. She further suggested that the minor and her parents be comprehensively counselled regarding the attendant medical consequences before any final determination was arrived at.
The Court, however, expressed serious reservations regarding the State and medical institutions assuming a determinative role in the matter, emphasising that the ultimate decision must vest exclusively with the minor and her guardians. Reaffirming the inviolability of reproductive choice, the Chief Justice asserted that no person can be coerced into carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Drawing attention to the grim realities of child sexual abuse, the Court observed that it would be manifestly unjust to compel a minor whose rightful focus ought to remain on her education and developmen to shoulder the burdens and obligations of motherhood. The Chief Justice characterised the issue as one involving a direct and delicate conflict between the interests of the foetus and the fundamental rights of the child survivor, concluding that the law cannot mandate continuation of such a pregnancy against the wishes of the minor.
While taking note of the medical apprehensions placed before it, the Bench questioned whether such considerations could legitimately override the survivor’s circumstances, trauma, and constitutionally protected autonomy. The Court cautioned against an unduly foetus-centric approach that disregards the profound psychological and emotional suffering endured by the rape survivor.
Justice Bagchi further observed that the State is under a constitutional obligation to respect and preserve individual autonomy and decisional privacy. He noted that although medical evidence and expert opinions ought to be transparently disclosed to the parents, the ultimate determination must rest with them, particularly where the mental well-being of the minor is implicated. He further remarked that proceedings of this nature should not assume the character of an adversarial contest between the State and the individual.
The Bench indicated that exhaustive counselling of the minor and her parents should be undertaken, accompanied by complete disclosure of all medical risks, prognoses, and expert assessments. The Court further clarified that, upon such counselling and informed deliberation, due weight would be accorded to the decision ultimately taken by the minor and her family.
The post Supreme Court proposes Central Government to scrap off abortion deadlines for rape survivors appeared first on India Legal.