The Supreme Court Grants Abortion Rights to Rape Survivor at 27 Weeks, Criticizes Gujarat High Court’s Handling of the Case
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a rape survivor’s request to terminate her pregnancy at 27 weeks. The Court strongly criticized the Gujarat High Court for rejecting her plea and remarked that such action goes against constitutional principles. The top court also rebuked the High Court for its response, which it deemed a ‘counterblast,’ following the girl’s appeal being taken up by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court expressed its concern, questioning the ethics of compelling a rape survivor to undergo pregnancy in an unjust situation.
The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the High Court’s reaction to its orders, emphasizing that judges should not need to justify their decisions. It questioned the actions of the single-judge bench of the High Court, which issued an order on Saturday denying the woman’s abortion plea, even after the Supreme Court had already intervened on the same day.
Notably, the rape survivor is a minor who was required to undergo a medical examination by the High Court.
The Supreme Court’s directive allowed the termination of the pregnancy and instructed the girl to appear at a hospital in Bharuch, where the procedure could be performed the next day.
The decision to permit abortion came after the Supreme Court requested a new medical examination of the survivor. The latest medical report, carried out as per the court’s instructions, confirmed the survivor’s fitness for the medical procedure.
The Court criticized the High Court’s contradictory stance, stating that not allowing the girl to undergo medical termination was unjust. It highlighted that the issue of giving birth to an unwanted child affects a woman’s mental health and stressed the importance of a woman’s right to bodily integrity.
The Supreme Court also expressed frustration with the Gujarat High Court for issuing a clarification order that rejected the survivor’s abortion request after the Supreme Court had already intervened urgently. The High Court later provided reasons for the case’s adjournment.
Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan questioned the High Court’s actions, emphasizing that perpetuating an unjust condition by forcing the survivor to continue the pregnancy goes against constitutional philosophy.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, urged the bench not to make comments about the High Court judge, emphasizing that the judge in question is competent.
The Supreme Court clarified that its comments were not directed against anyone but were a reflection of the manner in which the High Court’s order was passed.
After the medical procedure, if the fetus is found to be alive, the hospital is instructed to provide necessary facilities, including incubation, and the state should take steps for lawful adoption.
The survivor’s lawyer requested the preservation of fetal tissues for DNA evidence in the rape trial. The Court suggested exploring the feasibility of this request.
In an urgent hearing on Saturday, the Supreme Court criticized the Gujarat High Court’s lackadaisical approach in handling the minor rape victim’s plea. The High Court had scheduled a hearing for August 23, days after the medical report, which further irked the top court as it deemed the delay critical.
