Supreme Court recalls order for termination of 30-week pregnancy of 14-year-old rape survivor

Satya Prakash 

New Delhi, April 29

The Supreme Court on Monday recalled its order for medical termination of 30-week pregnancy of a 14-year-old rape survivor from Mumbai as her parents expressed concern over her health. 

A Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud withdrew its April 22 order after interacting with the minor’s parents through video-conferencing.

The Bench — which had earlier allowed termination of her pregnancy — took up the matter again after a report from medical team stated that the girl’s mother was unclear if the abortion should be conducted or the baby should be allowed to be born and then given for adoption.

Noting that the welfare of the minor was of “paramount importance”, the Supreme Court had on April 22 overturned a Bombay High Court verdict and allowed the 14-year-old rape survivor to undergo medical termination of her almost 30-week pregnancy in view of “exceptional” circumstances.

It had directed the dean of the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal Medical College and General Hospital, Sion in Mumbai to set up a team of doctors immediately for aborting the foetus.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the upper limit for termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, special categories, including survivors of rape and other vulnerable women such as those differently-abled and minors. In exceptional cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the foetus is abnormal, the 24-week time limit can be breached.

Since the minor rape survivor had crossed the statutory 24-week period, her mother had moved the Bombay High Court for permission to terminate her pregnancy. After being denied the permission, the minor’s mother approached the Supreme Court which chose to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers it to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice in a case.

The Bench had passed the order after perusing the report of a medical board which clearly opined that the continuation of the pregnancy against the will of the minor would impact negatively on physical and mental well-being of the minor who is barely 14 years old.

 “Bearing in mind the exigencies of the situation and the welfare of the minor, which is of paramount importance and her safety…we set aside the judgement of the Bombay High Court,” the Bench – which also included Justice JB Pardiwala — said, setting aside the April 4 judgement of the Bombay High Court that had refused permission for termination of the minor’s pregnancy.