In a recent ruling, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized the importance of providing explanations in Hindi and English regarding the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy in cases arising from rape. The court directed that both the medical board and the investigating police officer must ensure that the rape victim, and her guardians if she is a minor, fully understand the implications of the procedure.
The court’s directive stated, “This Court further orders that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy will be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian, in case of a minor victim, understand Hindi or English.”
This order was issued while addressing a plea filed by a 16-year-old who was 25 weeks pregnant, a result of a sexual assault by a boy. The victim had lost her parents and was living with her aunt.
During the November 3 hearing, Justice Sharma expressed strong displeasure with the hospital authorities for refusing to provide an opinion on pregnancy termination without a judicial order. The court pointed out that earlier, in January 2023, detailed directions for pregnancy termination in cases where the pregnancy of sexual assault victims exceeded 24 weeks were provided in the case of Minor R Thr Mother H v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, but these orders were not being followed.
Justice Sharma then instructed the hospital to form a medical board and examine the victim on November 4. When the case was revisited on that day, the medical board reported that the victim was unwilling to undergo pregnancy termination. The court engaged with the victim, who explained her fear of the procedure’s risks. Her guardian, her aunt, expressed support for pregnancy termination.
Consequently, the court sent the victim back to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital for the medical board to re-explain the pros and cons of pregnancy termination. The court noted a miscommunication in the previous medical report, as it did not mention that the victim was informed that she might lose her life. The medical board had opined that pregnancy termination was possible and that the victim was mentally fit to make the decision.
The court directed the medical board to seek the victim’s opinion once more, and if she still declined pregnancy termination and wanted to continue with the pregnancy, she should be brought before the court on November 6, 2023, at 3:00 PM. If the victim and her guardian consent to pregnancy termination, and the medical board deems it appropriate, the procedure should be conducted on the same day.
The court stressed that the medical board should explain the pros and cons of pregnancy termination and continuing with the pregnancy in Hindi, the mother tongue of the victim and her guardian, to avoid any miscommunication.
The case will be revisited on November 6 at 3 pm. The petitioner victim and her guardian were represented by advocates Anwesh Madhukar Prachi, Nirwan, and Devesh Khanagwal of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC). The State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) Yasir Rauf Ansari, as well as advocates Alok Sharma and Vasu Aggarwal.
