In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has allowed a minor rape survivor to terminate her 24-week pregnancy, affirming her reproductive rights and emphasizing that no woman should be forced to bear a child conceived through rape. Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, presiding over the case, stated that such pregnancies cause grave mental anguish and violate the survivor’s fundamental rights to dignity and autonomy.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a minor represented by her guardian, sought medical termination of her pregnancy resulting from a sexual assault. The case, ABC (Minor) Through Natural Guardian XYZ v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others [WPC No. 6513 of 2024], was registered after an incident of forcible sexual intercourse, leading to an FIR (Crime No. 21/2024) at Dongripali Police Station in Sarangarh-Bilaigarh district.
Advocate Shri Basant Dewangan represented the petitioner, while Deputy Advocate General Shri Praveen Das appeared for the State. The petitioner argued that continuing the pregnancy caused immense mental and social trauma, making termination essential.
The High Court, responding to the petition filed on December 30, 2024, directed the Chief Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) of Raigarh to examine the petitioner. The medical report, submitted on January 1, 2025, indicated no fetal anomalies but highlighted potential risks to the petitioner’s mental health if the pregnancy continued.
Legal Issues
1. Interpretation of the MTP Act, 1971
The court examined whether the petitioner’s pregnancy, exceeding the 24-week limit, could be terminated under the exceptions provided in the amended MTP Act. The law permits termination beyond 20 weeks in cases of grave risk to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, especially in pregnancies caused by rape.
2. Reproductive Rights and Mental Health
The court considered whether denying termination would violate the petitioner’s reproductive autonomy and mental well-being, protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Observations by the Court
Justice Guru referred extensively to precedents, including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and X v. Union of India. Emphasizing the principle of “best interests,” the court ruled that decisions must prioritize the survivor’s well-being over societal norms or other considerations.
The court observed:
“The anguish caused by pregnancy resulting from rape constitutes grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. A victim of rape must be given the liberty to decide whether to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it.”
Highlighting the importance of reproductive autonomy, the judgment stated:
“A rape victim cannot be compelled to give birth to a child of the rapist. Such compulsion exacerbates the victim’s mental agony and violates her fundamental rights.”
Decision
The court directed that the petitioner be admitted to a tertiary care hospital with ICU facilities for immediate termination of her pregnancy. It ordered that:
– Expert medical practitioners perform the procedure after obtaining the requisite consent.
– The DNA of the fetus be preserved for use in ongoing criminal proceedings against the accused.
