It is a woman’s decision whether to continue pregnancy or go ahead with medical termination, the Allahabad High Court observed while hearing a 15-year-old rape victim‘s plea for abortion at 32 weeks. The court also said even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible.
Allowing the continuation of pregnancy after counselling of the victim and her parents of the risks involved with medical termination at 32 weeks pregnancy, a bench comprising justices Shekhar B Saraf and Manjive Shukla said, “This court is also of the opinion that a woman’s decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself.”
“This is primarily based on the widely acknowledged idea of bodily autonomy. Here, her consent reigns supreme,” it said while hearing the girl’s petition filed through her lawyer.
“Even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible and also to ensure that the child, being a citizen of this land, is not stripped of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution,” the bench said in its order dated July 24.
Thereby, it is the State’s duty to ensure that the adoption process, too, is carried out in an efficient manner and that the “best interests of the child” are followed, the bench said.
The girl, aged 15 years according to her high school marksheet, was living in the house of her maternal uncle. In his complaint, he claimed that she was “enticed” away by a man.
Based on the complaint, an FIR under Indian Penal Code section 363 (punishment for kidnapping). Upon recovery of the girl, the charge of rape and provisions of the POCSO Act were added. Subsequently, it was revealed that petitioner was 29 weeks pregnant.
The court noted that since the petitioner is 15 years old, the offence of statutory rape had been committed.
She was examined by three separate teams of doctors and the chief medical officer in his report stated that though the continuation of pregnancy would impact the physical and mental wellbeing of the victim, medical termination of pregnancy at this stage was not possible without any threat to the life of the victim.
On a pointed query by the court, it was stated that despite the risks involved, the parents of the victim were consenting to termination of pregnancy.
Considering various judgments of the Supreme Court where medical termination was not allowed at later stages of pregnancy, the high court counselled the petitioner and her parents regarding the risks involved with the termination of pregnancy at 32 weeks.
Eventually, the petitioner and her parents agreed to continue with the pregnancy.
