Citing both moral and legal grounds, the Chhattisgarh High Court recently decided against ending the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor who was 31 weeks along. The minor is required to take the pregnancy to term according to Justice Parth Prateem Sahu’s ruling. The government would pay for all delivery expenses and will expedite adoption, should the minor and her family decide to take that way, the court stressed.
The case started in May 2024, five months after the child, who lived in the Rajnandgaon district, allegedly disclosed her pregnancy following an alleged sexual assault in December 2023. Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were then utilized to register a formal complaint (FIR) against the accused. After she filed the case, a doctor’s checkup verified that she was 28 weeks along with her pregnancy as of early July.
The natural guardian of the kid filed a petition with the court asking for the pregnancy to be ended, claiming that doing so would cause the minor great bodily and psychological harm. The court ordered a group of specialists in medicine to assess the case in response. According to a report given by the Chief Medical and Health Officer of Rajnandgaon, the pregnancy was 32 weeks along and there would be more hazards involved in terminating it than in letting it go to term. The fetus was judged to be viable, healthy, and devoid of any defects, which led the medical board to advise against terminating the pregnancy.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971, which allows termination under certain circumstances, was taken into consideration by the court. The Act permits abortions up to 20 weeks into a pregnancy if the woman’s health is in danger or if there are significant abnormalities in the fetus. Similar circumstances may apply to pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks; however, the views of two licensed medical professionals are needed. Only when it is absolutely required to preserve the woman’s life or when significant fetal abnormalities are discovered is a termination beyond 24 weeks allowed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case made it clear that terminations longer than 24 weeks are only appropriate in certain situations. The court decided that the minor’s pregnancy would be medically dangerous and illegal to terminate because it was well past this point and there was a healthy fetus.
In accordance with the rulings of the medical board and the law, the court denied the petition. Nonetheless, the court ordered the state government to provide all support, including paying for the minor’s hospital stay and delivery expenses, in recognition of the trauma the child had experienced. If the minor and her family decided to adopt after birth, the government was also directed to help with the adoption procedure.
SOURCE :
TIMES OF INDIA
