SC Recalls Order Allowing 30-Weeks-Pregnancy Termination Of 14-Year-Old Rape Victim

The Supreme Court on Monday recalled it earlier order allowing a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy.

After speaking to the child's parents over video conferencing, CJI DY Chandrachud said that the 'interest of the child is paramount'. ( Image Source :PTI )

The Supreme Court on Monday recalled it earlier order allowing a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy. The top court reversed its order after the parents expressed their desire to have the baby after concerns were raised with regards to the safety of their daughter's health.

After speaking to the child's parents over video conferencing, CJI DY Chandrachud said that the 'interest of the child is paramount'.

In the morning, the case was mentioned again in front of the bench headed by CJI. After going through new details, the bench had asked for a vedio conference with the minor's Parents.

The Parents of the minor girl expressed their will to take their daughter back at home and deliver the baby.

The Supreme Court last week allowed the petition filed by a minor rape victim's mother seeking termination of a 28-weeks-pregnancy of her 14-year-old daughter. The court noted that the Bombay High Court order that rejected her plea of abortion did not factor in the impact of pregnancy on the minor. The pregnancy had almost entered the 30th week till the Supreme Court decided the case.

The top court allowed abortion and set aside the Bombay High Court order after a fresh medical report by the Medical Board. The fresh examination by the medical board opined that threat to the life of minor was less in carrying out termination rather than allowing the pregnancy to continue to its full term.

The top court had then noted that the medical termination is sought for a minor and the pregnancy is said to be a result of a sexual assault. "The minor was unaware that she was pregnant until very late. The medical board has said that the continuation of pregnancy may impact the well-being of the minor." the apex court said.

The court was told that the FIR was itself recorded on March 20, which is after the 24-weeks-pregnancy was completed. 24-weeks is a threshold for abortion under the current law. After that, a court's approval is needed to terminate pregnancy.

The top court set aside the Bombay HC order and requested the hospital authorities to constitute a team to undertake the termination of pregnancy and ensure her transportation. The Maharashtra government will bear the cost of the medical procedure.

The counsel appearing for the minor told the court that the court may pass immediate orders as the pregnancy is now almost in its 30th week.

The mother of the minor rape victim moved the top court seeking an urgent hearing after the Bombay High Court denied permission to the 14-year-old girl to terminate her pregnancy.

The High Court rejected the rape victim's plea to terminate pregnancy saying that terminating the pregnancy at an advanced stage would result in the birth of a fully developed foetus.

According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (the law governing abortions in India), terminating a pregnancy beyond 24 weeks would require court's permission. 

On April 4, the Bombay High Court had dismissed the plea filed by the girl's mother based on the Medical Board's report. The Medical Board's assessment stated that the victim's pregnancy presented a scenario where a live, viable preterm baby would result from termination, requiring neonatal intensive care.

The Board's report ruled out any substantial fetal abnormalities warranting termination after the 24-week threshold.

The high court in its order noted that the medical termination of pregnancy at this advanced gestational age will bear the same risk and consequences as that of delivery of term.

The mother then knocked the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's order, stating that medical opinion was prepared without examining her daughter.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the plea after it noted that the medical report on which the High Court based its ruling, did not mention the impact of the physical and mental status of the pregnancy on the minor and the background leading to the pregnancy, including alleged sexual assault. The apex court directed the counsel of the state of Maharashtra to help in the transportation of the girl and her mother to the hospital.