The Supreme Court has left a crucial decision to a minor’s family after doctors raised concerns over risks in a late-stage pregnancy case involving a 15-year-old survivor.
The Supreme Court of India in New (photo: IANS)
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a fresh plea seeking to overturn its earlier order permitting termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor, making it clear that the final call must rest with the minor and her family.
The bench used the hearing to underline a larger principle, stressing that in cases of rape involving minors, reproductive choice cannot be dictated by the state. “We respect individual choices and so should you,” Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, setting the tone for the court’s approach.
Advertisement
A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Bagchi asked Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS doctors, to counsel the girl’s parents and place all medical facts before them so they can decide whether to continue with the pregnancy.
Advertisement
During the hearing, the court came down sharply on the Centre for challenging its earlier order. “You have no locus to challenge… only the victim or her family can challenge,” the bench told the government, making it clear that the state cannot override the survivor’s autonomy.
The Centre, relying on AIIMS inputs, argued that at 30 weeks the foetus is viable and termination may not be medically feasible. It warned that the child, if born, could suffer severe deformities and organ complications, and that the minor herself may face long-term health consequences.
Bhati told the court that continuation of the pregnancy, followed by adoption, may be in the best interest of the child, adding that termination at this stage carries significant risks.
The bench, however, emphasised the trauma already endured by the minor. “Nothing can compensate the agony she suffered after the rape,” Chief Justice Surya Kant said, pointing to the long-term psychological impact of forcing her to continue the pregnancy.
The court observed that compelling a 15-year-old to carry the pregnancy to term would mean subjecting her to prolonged emotional distress at an age when she should be focused on her aspirations and future.
It also noted that in such cases, the law must prioritise the survivor’s dignity and well-being over rigid timelines.
The bench indicated that existing legal limits on termination may need reconsideration in cases of rape. It said that the law must evolve with changing realities and should not impose strict timelines where fundamental rights are at stake.
At the same time, the court directed that the minor and her family be supported with counselling, including psychiatric assistance, so that they can take an informed decision without external pressure.
Closing the hearing on a firm note, the Chief Justice underscored that the case ultimately comes down to the rights of the survivor. “If it has become a fight between a child and foetus, then the child should be allowed to live with dignity,” he said.
Advertisement
