SC asks Centre to consider amending law on terminating pregnancy of rape survivors beyond 20 weeks

While hearing a plea by AIIMS that sought the Supreme Court to overturn its earlier order allowing a 15-year-old girl to medically terminate her 30-week pregnancy, the court pulled up the Centre asking it to consider amending the law to permit rape survivors to terminate unwanted pregnancies even beyond 20 weeks.

On April 24, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had granted permission for the minor to medically terminate her 30-week pregnancy.

Observing that pregnancies resulting from rape should not be subject to rigid time restrictions, the apex court said the law must evolve in step with changing societal realities.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that the matter involved child rape and said denying termination would leave the survivor with lifelong trauma and emotional scars.

The court said the procedure should be carried out if the minor does not face permanent disability as a consequence. It also directed AIIMS to counsel the survivor’s parents, stressing that the ultimate decision must rest with the person concerned.

Appearing for AIIMS, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that termination was medically not feasible at this stage.

“It will be a live baby with severe deformities. Minor mother will have lifelong health issues and cannot reproduce. This child can be given for adoption. It has been 30 weeks now. It is a viable life now,” she argued.

Responding to the argument the bench said, “There are children available for adoption. In this country we have a lot of sympathies... There are deserted, abandoned children on the streets and even mafias on it. We have to look at them. This is an unwanted pregnancy of a 15-year-old child."

“This is a curative petition. Unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust on a person. Imagine she is a child. She should be studying now. But we want to make her a mother. Imagine the pain, the humiliation the child has suffered in this,” it added.

The bench, however, reiterated that the decision on whether to proceed with termination should be left to the survivor and her parents, with AIIMS assisting them in making an informed choice.

(With PTI inputs)