Rajasthan HC rejects plea seeking termination of pregnancy of minor rape survivor

High Court of Rajasthan rejected a request from the father of a minor rape victim to terminate his daughter’s 26-week pregnancy because it was considered medically dangerous for both the girl and the fetus.

The bank of Judge Avneesh Jhingan ruled that the social, economic and psychological consequences should be taken into account when making the decision. However, the psychological aspect, based on societal pressure in itself, was not enough to endanger two lives.

At the father’s request, a medical committee was set up to examine the victim. The initial report submitted by the medical board found the pregnancy to be in the high-risk category. Taking into account the victim’s hemoglobin level and platelet count, it was assumed that the risk had increased in the event of a termination of pregnancy.

The medical board was instructed to provide clear advice in their next report as to whether the symptoms that made the termination dangerous could be treated immediately. In the following report, the medical board concluded that termination of pregnancy at that stage would pose a high risk to both the victim and the fetus compared to continuing the pregnancy.

However, based on the psychological assessment of the victim and the social status of her family, it was stated that continuing the pregnancy will be stressful and due to the combustible, physical and psychological consequences, termination of pregnancy was suggested by the medical board.

“The psychological analysis relies heavily on the fact that the victim and her father are poorly exposed in society and face marital problems, which may lead to them being rejected.”

The Court stated that despite a clear direction, the Medical Board did not provide any advice as to whether the symptoms that made the termination dangerous could be treated immediately and as this was a time-sensitive matter, no more time could be allowed for it.

The Court found that the arrest of the victim and the father had a basis, but in reaching a decision on the termination of the pregnancy, many dimensions had to be taken into consideration. Of these, the most relevant consideration was the health of the mother and fetus, and the chances of survival of the fetus.

In this light, the Court ruled that the psychological consequences alone were not sufficient to endanger two lives. The Court further issued certain directions to ensure the apprehensions of the victim and her father, including complete privacy of the victim’s identity at all stages; free medical facilities; transfer of the child to the child welfare committee after birth for adoption, speedy award of interim compensation to the victim, etc.

On this basis the request was rejected.

Title: Minor Victim through Natural Guardian v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

For submitter(s): Ms. Sangeeta Kumari Sharma

For respondent(s): Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Yash Joshi and Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj, AGC; Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC; Ms. Suman Shekhawat, Dy.GC with Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh; Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore; Mr. Braj Narain Sharma, CWC, Chairman, Kota

Click here to read/download the order