Delhi High Court Says That Court Can Direct Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks In Exceptional Situations

Observing that the Court had the power in exceptional situations to issue an order beyond what the statute ordains, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition of a 17 years old sexual assault survivor for medical termination of her pregnancy.

The alleged rape upon the petitioner occurred on December 25, at her native village. An FIR was registered at the Safdarjung Enclave Police Station. The minor victim was 24 weeks and few days pregnant. The petitioner approached a hospital for medical advice regarding termination of pregnancy on July, 22. Upon being apprised of the legal remedies which would have to be pursued, as she was pregnant beyond 24 weeks, the petitioner preferred a plea before the Court. 

The medical board formed by the hospital opined that in case of termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks, the Act sanctions termination of pregnancy only in case of substantial foetal abnormalities that may be diagnosed by the Medical Board. In the absence of such a condition obtaining in the present case, the Board expressed its inability to proceed further.

Justice Yashwant Verma noted that the opinion of the medical board failed to appreciate the amendment of 2021 to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The explanation inserted to Section 3 stated that, “For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b), where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.”

The Court said that termination of pregnancy could be directed even in cases of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks. 

A judgment in Surekha Gautam Khobragade v. State of NCT of Delhi Through Department of Health and Family Welfare & Anr W.P. (Crl.) 69/2021, was relied upon by the Court. “..to retain the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life and that the privacy of the individual recognizes an inviolable right to determine how the freedom shall be exercised,” the judgment observed.

Justice Verma observed that, “Her misery and suffering would stand compounded even more if she were forced to bear the mantle of motherhood at such a tender age. The Court shudders to even imagine the state of despondency that would descend over her life. The mental and physical trauma that she would have to undergo if she were forced to carry the foetus and take on the onerous duties of motherhood is unimaginable.”

The Court directed the termination of her pregnancy through a medical board and preservation of the terminated foetus for the purpose of the ongoing criminal case.