In a compassionate yet precedent-affirming ruling, the Bombay High Court has allowed a 12-year-old girl, who became pregnant following sexual assault, to undergo an abortion at 28 weeks, despite a medical board’s cautionary stance against the termination.
The court emphasized that forcing the young survivor to carry an unwanted pregnancy would amount to stripping her of the fundamental right to choose the course of her own life.
The landmark decision, delivered on June 17 by a division bench comprising Justice Nitin Sambre and Justice Sachin Deshmukh, comes in response to a plea filed by the girl’s father.
He had approached the court seeking permission for the termination of his daughter’s pregnancy, which was the result of repeated sexual abuse at the hands of her maternal uncle — an ordeal that had led to the registration of a criminal case against the accused.
Medical Report Warned of Risks, But Court Prioritized Survivor’s Autonomy
As per procedure under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the girl was referred to a medical board of experts for evaluation. The board, after conducting a thorough medical examination, expressed serious concerns over the potential health risks involved in terminating such an advanced pregnancy.
The experts pointed out that at 28 weeks, abortion could pose significant medical complications for the minor, considering her young age and underdeveloped body.
However, the High Court observed that while the medical risks were valid considerations, they could not outweigh the girl’s right to bodily autonomy, personal dignity, and future well-being.
The judges remarked that forcing a victim of sexual assault to give birth against her will would amount to compounding the trauma she had already suffered, and would deprive her of agency over her own life and body.
“This court cannot compel the victim to carry on with a pregnancy that she does not wish to continue. Doing so would be tantamount to the state robbing her of her right to decide both the immediate and long-term course of her life,” the bench observed.
Acknowledgment of Gendered Burdens and Legal Context
The court further acknowledged the gendered nature of reproductive burdens, noting that while society recognizes a woman’s right to choose pregnancy regardless of marital status, the responsibility for unwanted or incidental pregnancies almost always falls solely on the woman or, in this case, the minor girl.
The ruling drew upon the constitutional principles of bodily integrity, personal liberty, and the right to life with dignity, which are foundational to interpreting reproductive rights under Indian law.
“We are equally required to be sensitive to the fact that a woman can become pregnant by choice irrespective of her marital status. However, in cases of unwanted or incidental pregnancies, the entire burden invariably falls on the pregnant woman or victim,” the bench noted.
Legal Framework: The MTP Act and Court’s Intervention
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks is generally prohibited unless a court intervenes. A judicial order becomes necessary in such cases, particularly when the pregnancy is the result of rape, incest, or when it poses a threat to the physical or mental health of the woman or minor girl.
Recognizing the exceptional nature of the case and the girl’s traumatic experience, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction to override the medical board’s recommendation and granted permission for the abortion. The court instructed that the procedure must be conducted under strict medical supervision, following all safety protocols.
Court Directs Multidisciplinary Medical Oversight
The bench directed that the termination procedure should be performed by a qualified medical team, which must include a paediatric surgeon and other relevant specialists. The goal is to ensure that the young girl receives comprehensive medical care, minimizing the risk of complications and ensuring her physical and emotional recovery.
“All necessary precautions and safety protocols must be in place. The medical termination should be conducted in a well-equipped facility by a multidisciplinary team to avoid any undue complications,” the order stated.
A Judgement Grounded in Compassion and Human Rights
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s sensitive and evolving approach to reproductive rights, especially in the context of minors and survivors of sexual violence. It places the individual’s choice, dignity, and mental well-being at the forefront of legal decision-making, even in situations where medical complexity is involved.
Legal experts and child rights advocates have hailed the ruling as a progressive step that reaffirms the right of survivors to make decisions about their own bodies, while also holding the state accountable for enabling them to do so safely.
The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of legal safeguards and judicial compassion, especially for vulnerable victims who are not just seeking medical relief, but a chance at reclaiming control over their lives after unimaginable trauma.
