In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court permitted a minor rape victim to terminate her pregnancy at 24 weeks and 6 days, underscoring the paramount importance of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. The court emphasized that compelling a rape survivor to carry a pregnancy to term against her will would exacerbate her trauma and infringe upon her fundamental rights.
The case involved a minor girl who became pregnant following a sexual assault. Unwilling to bear a child conceived through such a traumatic event, she petitioned the court for permission to terminate the pregnancy. On December 31, 2024, the court ordered a medical evaluation by the Chief Medical & Health Officer/Civil Surgeon of Raigarh. The subsequent report was submitted for judicial consideration.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, presiding over the case, referred to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which outlines the conditions under which a pregnancy may be legally terminated by registered medical practitioners. The court also cited precedents from the Supreme Court, notably the case of Suchita Srivastava and Another v. Chandigarh Administration, which affirmed a woman's right to make reproductive choices as an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Further, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mrs. A v. Union of India & Ors., where permission was granted for the termination of a 25 to 26-week pregnancy, recognizing that continuation could inflict severe mental injury on the woman without posing additional risk to her life if terminated. Additionally, the landmark judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. was considered, which unequivocally upheld the reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy rights of women, granting them the choice of whether or not to bear a child.
In its deliberation, the Chhattisgarh High Court acknowledged the profound psychological and emotional impact of forcing a rape survivor to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. The court asserted that the victim must be granted the liberty to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or opt for termination, thereby honoring her right to bodily autonomy and personal agency.
This judgment aligns with a series of progressive rulings by Indian courts that recognize and protect women's reproductive rights, especially in cases involving sexual assault survivors. By allowing the termination beyond the typical 20-week legal limit, the court demonstrated a compassionate and rights-oriented approach, considering the exceptional circumstances and the mental and physical well-being of the minor involved.
The decision is a reaffirmation of the judiciary's role in upholding individual rights and provides a precedent for similar cases in the future, emphasizing that the autonomy and choices of women, particularly those who have endured sexual violence, must be respected and facilitated within the legal framework.
This case highlights the evolving legal landscape in India concerning reproductive rights and the necessity for a nuanced approach that considers the complexities of each situation, ensuring that justice is both served and perceived to be served in a manner that upholds human dignity and constitutional freedoms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.