The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the Centre to amend the law so that there are no gestational time-related restrictions for rape survivors to seek abortion of late-stage pregnancies resulting from rape.
The development took place during the hearing of 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.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi 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," CJI Kant verbally remarked.
Observing that she cannot be forced to carry the pregnancy against her will, earlier this month, the top court had allowed the termination of the seven-month pregnancy carried by a 15-year-old rape survivor.
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. The team 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 plea 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.
The counsel for AIIMS on Thursday contended that the termination of pregnancy at this stage was not medically advisable. The continuation of pregnancy would better serve the interests of the child, the counsel argued. The counsel 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. The bench observed that the decision must rest with the minor and her parents, not the state or medical institutions. Observing that unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust on a woman, CJI Kant verbally remarked "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 a foetus and child... Minor child cannot be forced to bear a pregnancy".
The bench 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," CJI Kant orally remarked.
Weighing in, justice Bagchi added "give respect to your citizen. Show data to parents and if they choose to keep it, then so be it. But if they think mental health is in jeopardy, they will take a call".
Justice Bagchi 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," said justice Bagchi.
The bench indicated that the counselling of the minor and her parents should be undertaken with full disclosure of medical consequences, including inputs from specialists. The bench said once implications are explained, the court would consider the position if the minor and her parents choose a particular course of action.
The development took place during the hearing of 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.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi 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," CJI Kant verbally remarked.
Observing that she cannot be forced to carry the pregnancy against her will, earlier this month, the top court had allowed the termination of the seven-month pregnancy carried by a 15-year-old rape survivor.
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. The team 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 plea 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.
The counsel for AIIMS on Thursday contended that the termination of pregnancy at this stage was not medically advisable. The continuation of pregnancy would better serve the interests of the child, the counsel argued. The counsel 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. The bench observed that the decision must rest with the minor and her parents, not the state or medical institutions. Observing that unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust on a woman, CJI Kant verbally remarked "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 a foetus and child... Minor child cannot be forced to bear a pregnancy".
The bench 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," CJI Kant orally remarked.
Weighing in, justice Bagchi added "give respect to your citizen. Show data to parents and if they choose to keep it, then so be it. But if they think mental health is in jeopardy, they will take a call".
Justice Bagchi 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," said justice Bagchi.
The bench indicated that the counselling of the minor and her parents should be undertaken with full disclosure of medical consequences, including inputs from specialists. The bench said once implications are explained, the court would consider the position if the minor and her parents choose a particular course of action.
