Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Permission To Terminate 33 Weeks Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Victim, Cites Threat To Life

Observing that abortion at such an advanced stage would "not only endanger the life of the minor victim but is likely to premature delivery of child", the Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to direct termination of 33 weeks old pregnancy of a minor rape victim.

The Medical board also opined that it will not be safe and would be life threatening to the mother due to advance gestational age and considering that she is a minor.

While noting that on the date of filing of the petition the pregnancy is already "more than 33 weeks", Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj said, "The passage of time and delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court has only further aggravated the said aspect. There is no material available on record with this Court on the basis whereof this Court may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board. Directing medical termination of this pregnancy at such an advanced stage would not only endanger life of the minor victim but is also likely to lead to a pre-mature delivery of the unborn child who may further suffer from abnormality as a result of such attempt."

These observations came in response to the plea filed by a minor through her grandmother. It was  stated that she was raped by various persons and An FIR was lodged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

It was submitted that the child being conceived as a result of offence of rape committed on the minor and she does not intend to give birth to such child which is a "constant reminder of the atrocities extended to the minor."

The same is stated to be not good for the physical and mental Health as well as the social well being of the minor victim, added the petitioner.

The Court noted that the medical board has been constituted and it opined that as per Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021 Section 3 Clause 2(b) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of pregnancy the medical practitioner where such termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical Board.

Adding that it is not safe and life threatening to the mother due to advanced gestational age, the board said, "teenager minor pregnancy thin built high risk case, Anaemia so delivery at higher centre (KCGMCH Karnal) is recommended in view of risks related to termination and its consequences."

Considering the above opinion the Court said there is "no material available" on record with the Court on the basis whereof it may differ with the opinion expressed by the Medical Board.

The counsel for respondents highlighted that in the case of R v. State of Haryana & Anr. (CWP-13256-2023) certain directions were passed when the permission to terminate pregnancy was declined, which includes the following:

i) The Civil Surgeon/Chief Medical Officer, Rewari is directed to ensure that all necessary medical facilities are made available to the petitioner, without the payment of fee, charges or expenses of any nature and to ensure that the delivery takes place in a safe environment.

ii) The privacy of the petitioner shall be maintained at all stages and identity of the petitioner be not divulged in the course of hospitalization and treatment.

iii) The child, on birth, may be handed over to the Child Welfare Committee of District Rewari and the petitioner shall fulfill all such necessary documentation and formalities as may be so required in law for handing over custody of the said child to the Child Welfare Committee.

iv) The said Child Welfare Committee, Rewari shall take care of all needs and facilities of the child.

In the light of the above, the bench said taking into totality consideration and the circumstances, the advanced stage of the pregnancy, the petition is disposed of in terms of the directions given by this Court in R v. State of Haryana (CWP-13256-2023) but with the modification that the minor victim should be treated and the delivery should be conducted at the “Kalpna Chawla Government Medical College and Hospital.”

Justice Bhardwaj further added that "taking into consideration the risks involved in the present case after noticing the anaemic condition of the minor and that the necessary expenses and responsibilities directed in the above case to be performed by the Child Welfare Committee of District Rewari should in fact be read as the responsibilities to be performed by the Child Welfare Committee of District Karnal."

Consequently, the plea was disposed of.

Appearance: Sanjeev Sharma, Legal Aid Counsel

Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana

Himmat Singh Sidhu for respondent PGI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (PH)

Title: X v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Click here to read/download the order