Mumbai: Observing that a minor rape survivor cannot be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has allowed medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) for a 12-year-and-5-month-old girl, despite the high-risk nature of the procedure due to her age and advanced gestation of 28–29 weeks.
The pregnancy resulted from alleged sexual assault by the girl’s uncle, an FIR for which was registered on June 5. The court noted the delay in approaching the authorities was likely due to the accused being a close family member.
The HC, while hearing a plea by the girl’s parents seeking permission for termination, had directed a medical examination. The Medical Board opined that while the procedure, hysterotomy, was possible, it was “high risk” and should be performed only with informed consent of the parents and the girl’s assent.
Despite the risks, the court observed that the Board had not stated that the girl’s life would be in danger. It noted that both the minor and her parents were willing to proceed and would provide the required high-risk consent.
State opposed the plea citing the medical report. It said that considering the expert opinion, it will not be justifiable to permit the medical termination of pregnancy as there is high risk having regard to the age and fetal gestational age.
Rejecting the State’s objection, the court underlined the constitutional right of the victim to make decisions about her body and future. “The State cannot force the victim to carry her pregnancy against her wish,” the court said, adding that doing so would infringe on her right to dignity, bodily autonomy, and mental well-being.
The court also highlighted that the burden of an unwanted pregnancy falls entirely on the woman, especially a child in this case, and that her choice must be respected.
The court directed the Dean of Government Medical College, Akola, to ensure the procedure is carried out at the earliest by a team comprising a paediatric surgeon, gynaecologist, and, if possible, a paediatric anaesthesiologist, while strictly following all safety protocols.
The parents had agreed to provide “High Risk consent” and “assent of patient” before undertaking the procedure.
“We however clarify the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the parents of the victim that they are willing to furnish an undertaking of high risk consent and the assent of the patient be also made part of the medical record,” the court noted in its order.
