Court backs minor rape survivor in 31-week pregnancy, permits adoption post delivery

The petitioner, a minor rape survivor, had filed a petition through her father seeking directions to the authorities to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy by taking all necessary measures.

On June 3, a medical board was constituted to examine the minor, and it was directed to submit the report by the next day. In its report, the board stated that the pregnancy was over 31 weeks, and hence abortion was not permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal allowed a 16-year-old rape survivor’s plea to continue with her 31-week pregnancy.

The report had shown the foetus to be normal, and opined that if the court ordered termination, the doctors would instead attempt induced labour, aiming for normal delivery, and the newborn baby would require specialised neonatal care.

‘Minor no longer wants abortion’

On June 4, the court observed that the medical report did not clearly address whether termination of pregnancy at this stage would be safe for the life and health of the mother and, therefore, called for another report in this regard.

Advocate Payal Mehta, appearing for the girl, stated that the minor survivor no longer wished to get the pregnancy terminated and wanted to give birth to the child, and relying on a previous judgement of this court, requested that the matter be disposed of on similar terms, as the minor was willing to give the child for adoption. The counsel also sought compensation for her.

Advocate Abhishek Kumar, appearing for Chandigarh and the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), stated that they have no objection in case the petition is disposed of in terms of the directions issued by this court in the earlier judgment, and informed the court that the minor was already admitted at PGIMER. 

Medical board’s opinion

• The girl is at present over 31 weeks pregnant, and in case termination of pregnancy is advised, she will undergo induction of labour and a preterm childbirth.
• Every female who undergoes childbirth faces some threat to her life – statistically expressed as Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR) which is the proportion of maternal deaths per 1 lakh live births. The current MMR in India is 88 per 1 lakh live births. 
• Another parameter is the Maternal Mortality Rate, which is the maternal deaths among women aged 15-49 per 1 lakh women in that age group. At present, this is five per 1 lakh women in India. 
• As the minor is under close medical supervision in a tertiary care hospital, every precaution will be taken to minimise any threat to her life. 
• Continuing her pregnancy further till full term or conducting a preterm delivery is not likely to have any significant effect on the risk to her life, which has been quoted above.

Relief granted

The court observed that the girl is 16 years old, her father has been suffering from a permanent locomotor disability to the extent of 45 per cent and both her parents are engaged in unskilled jobs. It also noted that the survivor became pregnant on account of a forcible physical relationship, prompting them to seek medical termination of the pregnancy.

Disposing of the petition in favour of the minor, the court directed PGIMER authorities to provide her the requisite medical support and all facilities, consultation, etc, till her delivery, free of charge. It also directed the hospital to ensure a congenial environment for the minor, and to preserve the DNA sample of the foetus/child after its birth and forward the same to the investigating officer. 

Adoption, compensation

The court emphasised that if the minor decides to give the child for adoption after delivery, the Chandigarh administration and its agencies may take responsibility for the child and arrange foster care or adoption as per the law. It added that this will depend entirely on the minor and her family’s wishes at the time.

It also directed the State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh, to consider the minor’s case for grant of compensation under Section 396 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) or any appropriate scheme and the necessary relief be granted to her as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two months from the date of this order. 

The court directed that the identity of the minor and her family must remain strictly confidential. No authority, including PGIMER, police, or the court, should disclose her identity at any stage, and mentioned that the court registry has been told to remove the minor’s father’s name from the case title, case status on the website, and all interim orders.