Supreme Court allows rape survivor to terminate pregnancy, raps Gujarat High Court

The Supreme Court has allowed a rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy of over 27 weeks. The court had also expressed displeasure over the Gujarat High Court adjourning the survivor’s plea for medical termination of her pregnancy and said “valuable time” has been lost during the pendency of the matter.

The bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan took note of the survivor’s medical reports and said that the Gujarat High Court was not right in rejecting the prayer for termination of pregnancy. The Supreme Court also commented that in Indian society within the institution of marriage, pregnancy is a reason for joy and celebration not only for the couple but for the family and friends.

“In contrast, pregnancy outside marriage is injurious, particularly in cases of sexual assault or abuse and is a cause of stress and trauma affecting the physical and mental health of pregnant women. Sexual assault of a woman is itself distressing and sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy compounds the injury. This is because such a pregnancy is not voluntary or mindful,” the bench said. “In view of the above discussion and the medical report, we permit the appellant to terminate her pregnancy. We direct her to be present in hospital tomorrow so that procedure for termination of pregnancy can be carried out,” they added.

The Supreme Court also said that if the foetus is found to be alive, then the hospital has to give all necessary assistance including access to incubators to ensure the survival of the foetus and if the foetus does survive, then the state will have to take steps to ensure that the child is adopted in accordance of the law.

Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, the upper limit for the termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, special categories including survivors of rape and other vulnerable women such as the differently-abled and minors.

Please, also have a look : Cauvery Water Dispute: Supreme Court faces backlash for refusal to interfere