The High Court of Kerala recently gave a judgment in favor of a 16-year-old rape survivor and said that denying permission to a rape survivor to medically terminate her unwanted pregnancy would amount to denying her right to live with dignity.
The Court gave this judgment on a petition moved by a 16-year-old rape victim through her mother. According to the reports, the victim was studying 9th standard when she was raped by her 19-year-old lover and became pregnant.
Under section 376 (rape) of the IPC and various provisions of the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act) and the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act), a case was registered against the man.
The MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) Act, allows only termination of pregnancy until the 24 weeks except in certain circumstances. The rape victim and her mother approached the court seeking a permit to medically terminate her 28-week pregnancy. The Court went through a report of the medical board that was formed to examine the pregnant girl which considered that continuation of pregnancy may be detrimental to the girl's mental and physical health.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that according to the provisions of the MTP Act, a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who raped her. According to Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act if the continuation of the pregnancy would cause grave injury to the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman, then the pregnancy can be terminated.
According to Explanation 2 of Section 3 (2) of the act says that where the pregnancy was caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grievous injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. Hence, a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who assaulted her sexually.
The Court said that declining permission to a rape victim to medically terminate her unwanted pregnancy would amount to forcing her with the responsibility of motherhood and denying her human right to live with dignity which forms an important part of the right of life guaranteed under Article 21 of the constitution.
The Court in its judgment explained that pregnancy outside marriage, in most cases, is injurious, particularly after sexual abuse, and is a cause for trauma affecting both the physical and mental health of the pregnant woman, the victim. Sexual assault or abuse of a woman is itself distressing and the resultant pregnancy compounds injury, this is because such a pregnancy is not a voluntary or mindful pregnancy.
The Court highlighted that reproductive rights include the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, and the right to access safe and legal abortions.
Hence, the court granted her permission to terminate the pregnancy and directed the hospital to take care of the fetus if it is found alive after the procedure and also directed the state to take full responsibility and provide medical aid to the child in accordance with the provisions of Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Act.
(Input from various sources)
(Rehash/Lavanya Beeraboina)
