The Supreme Court of India addressed a significant legal and humanitarian issue on Thursday, urging the Centre to consider amending laws governing the termination of pregnancies for rape survivors. This comes in the context of a plea from AIIMS related to a 15-year-old girl who sought to terminate her 30-week pregnancy resulting from rape.
The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, expressed deep concern over the limitations imposed by current laws, specifically the 20-week cap on pregnancy termination. The justices emphasized that in cases of rape, especially involving minors, there should not be a stringent time limit restricting access to medical procedures. “When there is pregnancy due to rape, there should not be a time limit,” said the bench, pointing out that laws must be adaptable and responsive to societal changes.
This case highlights the traumatic experience faced by young survivors. The court acknowledged that denying the termination could impose lifelong emotional and psychological scars on the minor. “This is a case of child rape, and the survivor will have a lifelong scar and trauma if termination is not allowed,” the justices stated.
The court did not shy away from addressing the societal implications associated with such unwanted pregnancies. It questioned the prevailing attitudes toward adoption, stating, “There are children for adoption. In this country, we have a lot of sympathies… There are deserted, abandoned children on the streets.” The justices reiterated that childhood should not be marred by forced parenthood. “Imagine she is a child. She should be studying now. But we want to make her a mother. Imagine the pain, the humiliation the child has suffered in this,” they remarked.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented AIIMS during the proceedings. She expressed that terminating the pregnancy would pose significant health risks for the minor, mentioning the potential for severe deformities in the baby. Bhati argued that allowing the pregnancy to continue risks the mother’s health and future reproduction. “This child can be given for adoption. It has been 30 weeks now. It is a viable life now,” she stated.
However, the Supreme Court maintained that the final decision regarding termination should rest with the survivor and her family, with AIIMS providing the necessary counseling. “The decision on termination has to be the choice of the survivor and her parents. AIIMS may help them take an informed decision,” emphasized the court.
This landmark case draws attention to the necessity of aligning legal frameworks with evolving societal norms, especially in matters of reproductive rights for women and, particularly, minors. Advocates for women’s rights have long argued that restrictions on termination of pregnancy in cases of sexual assault require urgent reform.
The court had previously ruled on April 24, allowing the girl to medically terminate her pregnancy after extensive legal deliberations. As this situation unfolds, it raises critical questions about how laws should address the complexities of trauma and the rights of vulnerable populations.