Calling for urgent legal reform, the court observed that pregnancies resulting from rape should not be constrained by statutory time limits. “When there is a pregnancy due to rape, there should not be a time limit. Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving time,” the bench stated, signalling a potential shift in the legal discourse surrounding reproductive rights.
Chief Justice Surya Kant delivered a stern rebuke to Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, emphasizing the emotional and psychological trauma endured by the minor. “Nothing can compensate the agony she suffered after the rape. Give respect to citizens. You have no locus to challenge the court’s termination order; only the victim or her family can challenge,” the court said.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi reinforced the court’s stance, stressing the primacy of individual choice. “We respect individual choices and so should you. Show data about possible health issues to the parents, and if they choose to keep the foetus, then so be it. But if they believe their child’s mental health is at risk, they must decide. Do not press your curative,” he said. The bench further urged that the matter should not become a confrontation between the State and its citizens, recommending psychiatric and counselling support for the survivor and her family.
The government, represented by Bhati, had argued that termination at this advanced stage was medically unfeasible and posed risks to both the minor and the foetus. Citing a report from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, she stated that the pregnancy would likely result in the birth of a child with severe deformities and could cause lifelong health complications for the minor. She proposed that the girl deliver the child and place it for adoption, describing this as being in the “best interest of the child,” and urged the court to consider that only “four more weeks” remained.
Rejecting this position, the Chief Justice underscored the lasting trauma of rape and its consequences. “This is a case of child rape. The victim will carry lifelong scars. Every minute she carries the foetus adds to her agony. If it has become a fight between a child and a foetus, then the child must be allowed to live with dignity. Law has to be ruthless if justice so demands,” he stated. The court also highlighted the disruption to the minor’s life, noting that she was at an age where she should be pursuing aspirations and ambitions, not forced into motherhood after enduring profound pain and humiliation.
The present exchange follows last week’s order by a bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, which allowed the termination of the pregnancy. The bench held that compelling the minor to continue the pregnancy violated her fundamental rights, particularly her right to life and dignity, and emphasized that reproductive autonomy must be accorded the highest importance. The court had also taken note of the survivor’s severe psychological distress, including two suicide attempts, stating that forcing continuation of the pregnancy would be a direct affront to her dignity.
During earlier proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had pointed to medical risks associated with late-stage termination and highlighted that the case had crossed the statutory 24-week limit prescribed under existing law.
The petitioner, however, maintained that the pregnancy had already caused severe disruption to the minor’s life, including her education, describing each day as deeply traumatic.
The case stands as a significant moment in the ongoing debate over reproductive rights in India, with the Supreme Court firmly asserting the primacy of a survivor’s dignity, autonomy, and mental well-being over procedural and statutory constraints.
About The Author
Comment List