Minor can’t be forced to carry unwanted pregnancy: Chhattisgarh High Court

“The legislative intent is explicit that a woman who has conceived as a consequence of rape should not be compelled to undergo further psychological trauma by continuation of an unwanted pregnancy. The said presumption acquires still greater significance where the victim was a minor on the date of the incident, as in the present case. Compelling such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to perpetuating the trauma already suffered by her and would seriously impair her dignity, bodily integrity and mental well-being,” the court said on July 21.

The case reached the high court after a Medical Board constituted on the court’s directions examined the survivor and reported that she was carrying a single live intrauterine pregnancy of approximately 25 weeks and five days. Although the Board stated that termination was not permissible under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act because the pregnancy had crossed 24 weeks, the high court held that the survivor’s constitutional rights and the extraordinary facts of the case warranted judicial intervention.

Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad said that refusing termination of pregnancy would continue to violate the petitioner’s rights to dignity, privacy, bodily autonomy and reproductive choice under Article 21. (Image enhanced using AI)

Medical board’s opinion not binding

While considering the petition, the court examined the report of the medical board, which had noted that the petitioner was around 25 weeks and five days pregnant, suffered from anaemia with haemoglobin of 8.7 gm/dL, and that the foetus showed no gross abnormality.

The board concluded that termination was not permissible because the pregnancy had exceeded 24 weeks under the MTP Act. However, the high court held that the medical board’s opinion could not be treated as binding upon a constitutional court.

The court also noted that medical science itself recognises that gestational age determined through ultrasonography is only an estimate and carries an accepted margin of error of approximately two weeks. Therefore, the sonography report could not be treated as an inflexible basis to deny relief in a case involving violation of fundamental rights.

Constitutional rights

The court said, “Refusal to permit termination in the peculiar facts of the present case would result in continuing infringement of the petitioner’s right to dignity, privacy, bodily autonomy and reproductive choice guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The court observed that the MTP Act itself recognises survivors of rape and minors as a special category by creating a statutory presumption that a pregnancy caused by rape results in “grave mental trauma and psychological suffering” of the pregnant woman.

Justice Prasad said this presumption becomes even stronger where the survivor was a child at the time of the assault. The trauma of sexual violence, combined with the emotional, psychological and social consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, has a “profound impact” on the victim’s life and future, the court noted.

The judge further observed that the petitioner was allegedly kidnapped and sexually exploited when she was a minor, and the pregnancy was not the outcome of a consensual relationship but arose from alleged offences under the POCSO Act.

“To compel such a victim to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes would amount to subjecting her to further trauma and would seriously impinge upon her bodily integrity, dignity, privacy and reproductive autonomy, all of which are facets of the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the court said.

Final order

Allowing the petition, the high court directed the chief medical and health officer, Raipur, to ensure that the survivor is admitted, preferably within 24 hours, to Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, or another government tertiary care hospital equipped to carry out the procedure.