Gujarat HC Refuses Termination Of 8-Month Pregnancy Of Minor Rape Survivor Allegedly Impregnated By Real Brother
Relying on a medical board report citing severe maternal and fetal risks at 34-36 weeks of gestation, the Gujarat High Court directed the State to bear all medical and postpartum expenses and arrange for the newborn's adoption
The Gujarat High Court refused to permit the termination of the advanced pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor allegedly impregnated by her brother after a medical board warned of serious maternal and fetal risks. The Court directed the State to bear all medical expenses and facilitate adoption of the child.
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition seeking the medical termination of an advanced eight-month pregnancy of a 17-year-old rape survivor, who was allegedly assaulted and impregnated by her biological brother.
Justice M.R. Mengdey declined the plea after reviewing a report submitted by a committee of medical experts from the New Civil Hospital, Surat. The committee strongly advised against the abortion, citing severe health risks to the minor due to the advanced gestational age.
The tragic incident came to light earlier this month when health workers at a local centre suspected the 17-year-old was pregnant.
Following medical confirmation, the minor lodged a police complaint on July 9, leading to the arrest of her 22-year-old brother.
The minor subsequently approached the High Court through the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), stating she did not wish to continue the pregnancy due to the traumatic and stigmatising circumstances.
On July 14, Justice Mengdey directed the Head of the Department of Gynaecology and other experts to examine the minor. The committee submitted its findings on July 16, revealing that the pregnancy was far more advanced than initially believed.
"The report indicates that as the pregnancy duration is around 34 to 36 weeks gestational age with live fetus of effective fetal weight 2112 gm, considering risk associated with termination of pregnancy at this gestational age and for better outcome in future pregnancy, it is advisable to continue pregnancy till patient goes into spontaneous labour," the Court noted, quoting the medical report.
Observing that the medical experts had warned of significant "fetal and maternal complications," the High Court concluded that permission for the termination of the pregnancy could not be granted.
Comprehensive directions for care and adoption
While dismissing the plea for abortion, the High Court issued a slew of protective directives to ensure the minor's physical health, financial security, and the future welfare of the child.
The Chief Medical Officer/Medical Superintendent at the New Civil Hospital Campus, Surat, has been directed to take appropriate steps to monitor the minor's health until she delivers the child.
The Court ordered that special medical treatment, including necessary neonatal care, be provided for the better growth and health of the newborn.
The State Government has been ordered to pay all medical costs associated with the delivery, including expenses for the treatment and nutrition of both the victim and the newborn. Furthermore, the State will bear all postpartum expenses for a period of six months.
The Court directed the DLSA to take immediate steps to provide interim compensation to the minor under the Victim Compensation Scheme.
Acknowledging the minor's unwillingness to keep the child, the Court directed that, after ascertaining her wishes and the physical condition of the newborn, the custody of the child shall be handed over to the Specialised Adoption Agency in Surat under the strict supervision of the Child Welfare Committee.
To ensure strict compliance, Justice Mengdey directed the Secretary of the DLSA to personally supervise the implementation of all these directions until the victim delivers and the child is safely handed over for adoption.
Last year, the Gujarat High Court had permitted a 13-year-old rape survivor to medically terminate her pregnancy, which had crossed 33 weeks, citing the mental trauma and physical risks associated with forcing the minor to carry the pregnancy to term.
Case title ~ XYZ (VICTIM) v STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS