Remove time limits on abortions for pregnant rape survivors: Supreme Court urges Centre

The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Central government to amend the law so that there are no gestational time-related restrictions for rape survivors to seek abortion of late-stage pregnancies that have resulted from the rape.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was dealing with a curative plea filed by AIIMS to reconsider the Court's recent decision to allow the termination of an over 30-week pregnancy carried by a 15-year-old girl.

The Bench stressed that the legal framework must evolve with time and prioritise the dignity of rape survivors.

“Please amend your law… that when there is pregnancy due to rape etc., the time limitation will not be there. The law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving time,” stated CJI Kant.

Earlier this month, the Court had allowed the termination of the seven month pregnancy carried by the 15-year-old rape survivor, observing that she cannot be forced to carry the pregnancy against her will.

A team from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), however, concluded that the termination of the pregnancy at 30 weeks would likely result in a live birth with severe deformities. It added that the procedure could also pose serious long-term health risks to the minor mother, including possible inability to reproduce in future.

The AIIMS, therefore, filed a curative petition before the Court, to reconsider the decision allowing the abortion of the minor girl's pregnancy. The doctors at AIIMS suggested that continuing the pregnancy for about four more weeks would improve the chances of survival of the child, after which the baby could be given for adoption.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented AIIMS and argued today that the termination of pregnancy at this stage was not medically advisable. The continuation of pregnancy would better serve the interests of the child, she said.

She further suggested that the minor and her parents could be counselled on the medical consequences before any decision was taken.

The Bench, however, expressed reservations about AIIMS' plea. It observed that the decision must rest with the minor and her parents, not the State or medical institutions.

“Unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust on a person. Imagine, she is a child. She should be studying now. But we want to make her a mother... This is a case of child rape. Victim will have lifelong scar and trauma ... It is now a fight between foetus vs child...Minor child cannot be forced to bear a pregnancy," CJI Kant said.

The Court also engaged with the State’s argument that continuing the pregnancy briefly could improve the outcome for the foetus.

It acknowledged that medical predictions were being placed before it but questioned whether those considerations could override the minor’s situation.

“Too much focus on the child (foetus) and not the mother who has gone through such pain,” remarked CJI Kant.

Justice Bagchi added,

“Give respect to your citizen. Show data to the parents and if they choose to keep it, then so be it. But if they think the mental health is in jeopardy, they will take a call.”

He emphasised that the matter should not become adversarial and that the State should not take over the choice from the pregnant individual.

“Let us not make a fight between 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 indicated that counselling of the minor and her parents should be undertaken with full disclosure of the medical consequences, including inputs from specialists.

It added that once the implications are explained, the Court would consider the position if the minor and her parents choose a particular course of action.

[Read Live Coverage]