In a significant and compassionate ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has directed that a minor rape victim be allowed to give birth and, if she chooses, to place the child for adoption, with all necessary assistance from the state authorities. The court’s order, delivered by Justice Dinesh Mehta, came in response to an application filed by the victim’s father following the failure to medically terminate the pregnancy due to the advanced stage of gestation.
The case, Ms. X vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Writ Misc. Application No. 288/2024), underscores the complexities surrounding reproductive rights and the welfare of rape victims in India, particularly minors. The petitioner was represented by Ms. Priyanka Borana and Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, while Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, appeared for the State.
Background of the Case
The case involves a minor girl who was impregnated due to sexual assault. Initially, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13913/2024, the court had permitted the medical termination of the pregnancy, which was to be carried out under the supervision of a medical board. However, when the minor was taken to the hospital for the procedure, the pregnancy had progressed to 29 weeks, and medical professionals advised against termination due to the potential risk to her health.
Given the circumstances, the victim’s father moved a fresh application, requesting the court to direct the State Government to bear the costs of delivery and facilitate the child’s adoption, should the minor and her family decide on that course.
Legal Issues Involved
The legal issues before the court included:
1. Right to Terminate Pregnancy: The complexity of terminating a pregnancy at an advanced stage and the associated health risks to the minor.
2. State Responsibility for Medical Costs: Whether the state should bear the medical expenses of a victim’s delivery, particularly when the pregnancy results from a crime.
3. Facilitation of Adoption: The state’s role in facilitating adoption for a child born from such circumstances.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Dinesh Mehta, while delivering the judgment, recalled the earlier order dated August 20, 2024, that allowed for the termination of the pregnancy, noting that it was no longer feasible due to the advanced gestation. He directed that the minor victim should be allowed to give birth and stated:
“The Child Welfare Committee, Sirohi, is hereby directed to provide counseling/assistance to the minor victim and her parents about the process of adoption, if they so wish.” — Justice Dinesh Mehta
The court did not mandate the State Government to bear the medical expenses, as Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, Advocate for the petitioner, volunteered to cover all costs related to the delivery. This selfless gesture was noted by the court, which expressed its appreciation, thereby removing the need for a state directive on the matter.
Further, the court underscored the importance of the state’s role in supporting the victim’s family in making informed decisions regarding the adoption process and directed the Child Welfare Committee to take appropriate steps if the family decides to proceed with adoption.
Response from the Parties
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, representing the state, did not oppose the application to recall the earlier termination order but resisted the idea of the state covering the delivery expenses. Meanwhile, Ms. Priyanka Borana, counsel for the petitioner, argued that based on a Supreme Court ruling in X vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5194/2024), the state should bear such costs. However, with the intervention of Advocate Mardia, this point became moot.
