“The law needs to be organic and in sync with the evolving times”, the apex court said, urging the government to have a relook at the abortion law.
Image: IANS
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a curative petition filed by AIIMS, Delhi, against its earlier direction permitting termination of a more than 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor, making it clear that the final decision must rest with the minor and her parents, not the medical institution.
A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that the choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy cannot be taken away from the individual concerned. The Court said AIIMS could place medical facts before the family, but it would not allow any institution to decide on their behalf.
Advertisement
Justice Bagchi underlined the need to respect individual autonomy, stating, “Give respect to your citizens. Show data to the parents and if they choose to keep it, then so be it. But if they think their mental health is in jeopardy, they will take a call.”
Advertisement
The Court indicated that the minor and her parents must be counselled comprehensively, with full disclosure of medical risks and outcomes by specialists, so that they can take an informed decision. It clarified that once such counselling is done, the Court would consider the course chosen by the family.
AIIMS had approached the Court seeking reconsideration of its earlier order, citing medical concerns over late-stage termination and suggesting that continuation of pregnancy could improve the chances of survival of the foetus. However, the Bench was not persuaded to revisit its decision, observing that the matter should not turn into an adversarial contest between the State and the victim.
“Let us not make a fight between the state and its citizens. We will not allow the institution to choose. The institution can convey it to the parents. They will decide,” stated Justice Bagchi.
The court stressed that an unwanted pregnancy, particularly in cases of rape involving a minor, cannot be imposed upon the victim. They also cautioned against shifting the focus entirely to the foetus at the cost of the survivor’s physical and mental well-being.
There is “too much focus on the child (foetus) and not the mother who has gone through such pain,” Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked.
During the hearing, the Court also made observations on the legal framework governing abortion in India. It asked the Central government to consider amending the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, to remove gestational limits in cases of pregnancies arising out of rape.
Observing that the law must evolve with changing realities, the Bench indicated that time restrictions may not be appropriate in such cases, where the trauma of the victim must be given primacy. “The law needs to be organic and in sync with the evolving times”, the court said urging the government to have a relook at the abortion law,
Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, termination of pregnancy is permitted up to 24 weeks for certain categories of women, including survivors of rape, minors and other vulnerable groups. The statutory framework also allows exceptions beyond this limit in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk or where there are substantial foetal abnormalities. Over the years, the Supreme Court has, in many cases, exercised its jurisdiction to permit termination even beyond the prescribed time limit.
Against this backdrop, the Bench on Thursday urged the Centre to re-examine the existing framework, particularly in cases involving pregnancies arising out of rape. It observed that rigid gestational limits may not adequately address the realities faced by survivors and indicated that the law should evolve with changing societal and medical contexts.
Notably, the 2021 amendment to Section 3(2) of the Act expanded the scope of permissible termination by allowing it up to 24 weeks, subject to a medical opinion formed in good faith that continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the life of the woman or cause grave injury to her physical or mental health. The Court’s observations now signal a possible need to revisit even this extended threshold in exceptional circumstances.
Advertisement
