Chhattisgarh High Court Permits Termination of 24-Week Pregnancy of Minor Rape Victim: Upholds Reproductive Autonomy and Mental Health Rights Under MTP Act and Article 21

Court’s Decision:

The Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the termination of a minor rape victim’s 24-week pregnancy. The court observed that forcing the victim to continue her pregnancy would severely compromise her mental health and dignity. It relied on the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), and relevant precedents, stating that such pregnancies, especially in rape cases, cause grave mental injury to the victim. The court emphasized the victim’s fundamental right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court directed the termination to be carried out at a tertiary care hospital with necessary ICU facilities. It also mandated the preservation of the fetus’s DNA for use in the pending criminal case.

Facts:

1. Background: The petitioner, a minor girl, became pregnant as a result of rape. A criminal case was registered (Cr. No. 21/2024) at Dongripali police station, and the accused faced trial.
2. Petitioner’s Circumstances: The petitioner experienced extreme anguish and mental trauma due to the pregnancy, which resulted from sexual assault. She approached the court, requesting an order for medical termination of the pregnancy, arguing that continuing it would exacerbate her suffering.
3. Medical Examination: Following the court’s order dated December 31, 2024, a medical board, including gynecologists and specialists, examined the petitioner. Their report confirmed that the pregnancy was approximately 24 weeks and 6 days. The board noted the physical health of the petitioner was stable but observed potential risks to her mental health if the pregnancy continued, including possible psychosis.

Issues:

1. Whether the court could allow termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory limit of 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
2. Whether continuing the pregnancy would violate the petitioner’s rights to mental health, dignity, and reproductive autonomy.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Mental Health Risks: The petitioner argued that continuing the pregnancy caused severe emotional and psychological distress, further intensifying the trauma of the sexual assault.
2. Dignity and Autonomy: She emphasized her right to reproductive autonomy, stating that being forced to give birth to a child conceived through rape would be a gross violation of her dignity and fundamental rights.
3. Legal Grounds: The petitioner relied on Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which presumes that pregnancies caused by rape result in grave mental injury, thereby meeting the conditions for termination.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Medical Board’s Report: The State highlighted the medical board’s findings that the fetus was healthy, with no congenital anomalies detected. However, the board acknowledged risks to the petitioner’s mental health if the pregnancy continued.
2. Compliance with Law: The respondents deferred to the court’s discretion regarding termination, based on the statutory provisions and judicial precedents.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended):
   • Section 3 allows termination of pregnancies up to 24 weeks for specific categories of women, including rape victims, if continuing the pregnancy would cause grave injury to physical or mental health.
   • Explanation 2 to Section 3 presumes that pregnancies resulting from rape constitute grave injury to mental health, justifying termination.
   • Beyond 24 weeks, termination is permissible under exceptional circumstances, such as when the woman’s mental or physical health is at significant risk.
2. Constitutional Rights:
   • The court underscored Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including reproductive autonomy, dignity, and mental health.
   • The judgment emphasized that compelling the victim to carry the pregnancy would violate her right to live with dignity.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009):
   • The Supreme Court emphasized the “best interests” test, prioritizing the welfare and autonomy of victims in cases involving reproductive decisions.
2. X v. Union of India (2016):
   • Allowed termination of a pregnancy beyond 20 weeks for a rape victim, citing severe risks to physical and mental health.
3. Mrs. A v. Union of India (2017):
   • Permitted termination of a 25-week pregnancy, holding that the mental injury to the petitioner outweighed any potential risks of termination.
4. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (2023):
   • Held that reproductive autonomy applies equally to unmarried and married women, emphasizing the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Mental Health and Dignity: The court highlighted that the anguish caused by the pregnancy, particularly in cases of rape, amounted to grave mental injury as per Explanation 2 of Section 3. It emphasized that continuing the pregnancy would deeply compromise the petitioner’s mental health and violate her dignity.
2. Judicial Responsibility: The court noted that judicial intervention was necessary to allow termination beyond 24 weeks, as the statute permits exceptions in extraordinary circumstances.
3. Victim-Centric Approach: The court prioritized the victim’s welfare over societal considerations, reinforcing that reproductive decisions must be guided solely by the victim’s interests.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy at a tertiary care hospital with ICU facilities. It directed the hospital to ensure proper medical care and mandated the preservation of the fetus’s DNA for criminal proceedings. The court also instructed immediate compliance by authorities to prevent further delays.

Implications:

1. Strengthening Reproductive Rights: This judgment reaffirms the rights of rape victims to make decisions about their pregnancies, emphasizing mental health, dignity, and autonomy.
2. Judicial Flexibility: It illustrates the judiciary’s readiness to interpret statutory provisions liberally to address the unique circumstances of victims.
3. Precedent for Similar Cases: The ruling may influence future cases involving termination of pregnancies exceeding statutory limits, particularly in cases of sexual assault.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Holds Municipal Corporation and Flat Owners Accountable for Illegal Amalgamation of Flats: “Non-Compliance Emboldens Offenders and Encourages Lawlessness”