In a landmark decision, the Gauhati High Court allowed the termination of a 26-week pregnancy for a minor rape survivor, asserting that the procedure was in the “best interest” of the 15-year-old victim. The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, prioritizing the physical and mental well-being of the survivor over procedural limitations in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
Background of the Case
The case, WP(C)(Suo Moto)/1/2024, came to the court’s attention after a Times of India report on November 29, 2024. The report detailed the ordeal of a minor, referred to as “X,” who had been gang-raped by seven individuals, including four minors, in Tinsukia district. The victim, unaware of her pregnancy until late, was 23 weeks pregnant when legal and medical intervention began.
On December 3, 2024, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) approached the victim and her family, securing their consent for the pregnancy’s termination. By then, the minor had been relocated to a shelter home, and medical evaluations revealed her pregnancy had progressed beyond 24 weeks.
Key Legal Issues
The court had to balance the following legal and ethical considerations:
1. Limits of the MTP Act: Section 3 of the MTP Act allows pregnancy termination up to 24 weeks under certain conditions, but the victim’s pregnancy exceeded this limit.
2. Risk to the Survivor: Expert medical opinions were sought to evaluate the risks of terminating the pregnancy versus carrying it to term.
3. Precedent from Supreme Court: The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in A v. State of Maharashtra, which allowed termination beyond statutory limits in cases of sexual assault, emphasizing the survivor’s welfare.
Observations and Decision
Justice Kalyan Rai Surana and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund carefully weighed medical reports. They noted that while termination carried risks, the danger was no greater than that of delivering a full-term baby. Quoting Supreme Court precedent, they underscored that the “welfare of the minor is of paramount importance.”
The court stated, “Termination of pregnancy at 26 weeks is not inherently riskier than delivery at full term. The victim’s tender age and the trauma of carrying an unwanted pregnancy necessitate this intervention.”
In detailed order:
– The court directed the Medical Board and Child Welfare Committee of Tinsukia to arrange for the procedure with expert care.
– They ordered the State to cover all medical expenses and ensure psychological counseling for the minor.
– Provision was made for the victim’s transportation to Dibrugarh Medical College, if required.
Role of Legal and Medical Experts
The victim was represented by Senior Counsel T.J. Mahanta, serving as Amicus Curiae, assisted by P. Sarma. The State was represented by Senior Government Advocate D. Nath. The Joint Director of Health Services, Tinsukia, and the Medical Board provided vital inputs.
Their report indicated the fetus was viable but acknowledged that the survivor’s physical and mental health justified medical termination. The risks, including hemorrhage and sepsis, were deemed manageable with expert care.
