In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, led by Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, granted permission for a rape survivor to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy, emphasizing the adverse effects of unwanted pregnancy outside marriage on mental health. This decision comes after an intricate legal battle following the survivor's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's rejection of her abortion plea.
The survivor's legal journey began with a single-judge bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing her request for abortion on August 17. Unsatisfied with the decision, she swiftly escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, which urgently convened to address her plea on Saturday. The apex court ordered a medical evaluation and expressed disappointment over the High Court's subsequent order against the survivor's plea without proper notice.
Justice Nagarathna questioned the High Court's actions, asserting that "No court in India can pass an order like this on a Saturday against a superior court order." The Supreme Court bench criticized the High Court's order as being contradictory to settled legal precedents. The Solicitor General of Gujarat claimed a clerical error, but the Supreme Court remained unconvinced, labelling the order as "suo moto" and highlighting the need for fairness and adherence to constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the societal contrast between pregnancy within marriage, which is generally celebrated, and pregnancy outside marriage, particularly in cases of sexual assault or abuse. The Court recognized that such pregnancies result in significant distress and trauma, both physically and mentally, for the pregnant women. Stressing the survivor's right to bodily integrity, the Court ruled in favour of her abortion plea, allowing her to terminate the pregnancy.
Justice Bhuyan underlined the gravity of the situation by stating, "How can you perpetuate an unjust condition on the victim?" The Court's order extended beyond the abortion, stipulating that if the fetus survived the procedure, the hospital must provide necessary support, including incubation. Moreover, the State was tasked with ensuring the child's adoption in accordance with the law.
The Supreme Court refrained from explicitly criticizing the High Court's order but urged caution when discussing it. The Court also directed the State to preserve fetal tissues for potential DNA examination in the ongoing rape case.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
