In a poignant judgment, the Bombay High Court has highlighted the harsh reality faced by women, particularly minors, in situations involving unwanted pregnancies. The Court expressed its “disturbance” over the gendered nature of suffering, which often leaves women alone in their struggles while the male partners evade accountability.
The case in question, Civil Writ Petition No. 12147 of 2024, was presided over by Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Neela Gokhale. The petition was filed by Miss “XYZ”, a 17-year-old minor who was 26 weeks pregnant, seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy. The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship with a 22-year-old male, Sujit Sonkar, who is a known acquaintance. Represented by advocate Ms. Snehal Chaudhari (through Legal-Aid), the petitioner faced the State of Maharashtra, represented by Mrs. M. P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a minor, had become pregnant under circumstances that led to the filing of an FIR against the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for sexual assault. She approached the Bombay High Court, seeking permission to terminate the pregnancy. A Medical Board was constituted by the J.J. Group of Hospitals and Grant Medical College, Mumbai, as directed by the Court on August 28, 2024, to examine the petitioner and assess her physical and emotional well-being, and the potential impact of either continuing or terminating the pregnancy.
The Medical Board’s unanimous report, submitted on September 2, 2024, revealed that the petitioner was an unmarried primigravida at 24 weeks and 5 days of gestation, with no congenital anomalies detected in the fetus. The Board concluded that, given her age and the psychological impact of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term, the petitioner was at risk of severe mental stress. However, the report also noted that the petitioner was not currently in a state fit for medical termination due to her health condition, which required stabilization over the next 2-3 weeks.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The case brought to light several critical legal issues surrounding reproductive rights and the autonomy of women over their bodies, particularly in situations involving minors. The Court’s judgment emphasized the right to reproductive freedom and the petitioner’s autonomy over her body, noting that these rights must be respected regardless of her age.
Justice Gadkari and Justice Gokhale allowed the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy, should she choose to do so, but also acknowledged her right to continue with it if she desired. “Conscious of the right of Petitioner to reproductive freedom, her autonomy over the body, and her right to choice, we permit the Petitioner to medically terminate the pregnancy, if she so desires,” the judgment read.
The Court highlighted the plight of women, particularly minors, in such distressing situations, noting the lack of support from their families and, importantly, from their male partners. “It is distressing to see the victim being left alone to fend for herself while understanding the nuances of the pregnancy itself,” the Court observed, “the dilemma of disclosing the fact to her parents and the partner leading to the pregnancy advancing beyond 24 weeks and thereby compelling her to approach the Court for permission to terminate the pregnancy.”
Decision and Directions of the Court
The Court, while allowing the petition, laid down several important directions:
1. Permission for Termination: The petitioner is permitted to terminate the pregnancy if she so desires, but only after being stabilized and re-evaluated for fitness in 2-3 weeks, as advised by medical professionals.
2. Choice of Hospital: The delivery or termination procedure can be carried out at K.E.M. Hospital, Mumbai, as requested by the petitioner and her mother.
3. Post-Delivery Care and Counselling: The Court directed the hospital authorities to provide appropriate post-delivery care, including neo-natal care and counselling, to the petitioner.
4. Preservation of Evidence: In light of the allegation of sexual assault, the hospital authorities are instructed to preserve DNA samples of the fetus or child for the criminal trial.
5. Option for Adoption: The Court allowed the petitioner to give the child up for adoption, should she choose to do so, and instructed the State and its agencies to take responsibility for the child if needed.
The Bombay High Court criticized the existing state of affairs where young women are often left unsupported in their decision-making regarding pregnancy and emphasized the need for a more effective support mechanism. It appointed Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, an advocate, as amicus curiae to assist in developing a suitable mechanism that ensures accountability and participation of the male partner in such cases.
