Citation(s): [2024] 5 S.C.R. 470; 2024 INSC 371
Date of the judgment: 22nd April, 2024
Bench/ Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, C.J., and J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Legal provisions involved:
3(4)(a)[4], 3(2-C)[5], and 5[6]
- Indian penal Code, 1860: Section 376[7] (rape)
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): Sections 4[8],
- Constitution of India: Article 21[11]
INTRODUCTION
Despite considering all of the accomplishments in the legal domain, the courts in India may nevertheless lack competent judgment. In the year 2022, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) anticipates about 90 rapes have been recorded regularly on a rough estimation in India, with a majority of these acts taking place towards adolescents.[12] As a consequence, their pregnancy could occasionally arise from this. The MTP Act of 1971[13] established provisions enabling termination of pregnancies up to twenty weeks. Nevertheless, in 2021, an amendment enhanced the time limitation up to twenty-four weeks. Yet what happens in circumstances wherein the gestational period of the pregnancy has turned out more than that exceeding timeframe as a result of delayed court decisions or when the pregnant person had no idea about it?
This case commenced when the High Court of Bombay turned down a minor’s plea to terminate a pregnancy caused by sexual assault. The case brought into focus the legal constraints imposed under the MTP Act[14], the erratic stances of the Medical Board, and the delays in the procedures for seeking court approval. When the case made its way to the High Court, the child in question was in her advanced pregnancy of twenty-five weeks, and by the time the case reached the Supreme Court, it was more than thirty weeks. The fundamental basis of the Court’s approach was the evolving jurisprudence on reproductive autonomy, with special focus on the constitutional safeguards stipulated in Article 21[15] of the Indian Constitution.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The victim ‘X’, who was aged fourteen years, suffered a sexual assault in September 2023 and was not aware of the fact until March 20, 2024, that she was approximately twenty-five weeks pregnant. On the same day, an FIR was lodged, and ‘X’ was taken to the hospital to terminate her gestation after it became apparent that she was both psychologically and physically capable of undergoing it with the authorization of the High Court. It was demanded by the appellant that the pregnancy of ‘X’ be terminated at the Judicature of the Bombay High Court on 3rd April, 2024. However, the Medical Board prepared a ‘clarificatory opinion’ dismissing the plea and refused to reexamine ‘X’.[16] The appeal was overturned by the High Court upon the basis of this report, which demonstrated that the pregnancy was approximately in the advanced stage of twenty-eight weeks, contrary to twenty-four weeks, which was permissible by the law. Discontented with the outcome of this case, a Special
Leave Petition, according to Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, was brought by the
Appellant. To hear this case, the Bench of the High Court reopened this case on the 19th of April 2024 after the normal hours of operation of the Court. The Court stated that the report released on the 3rd of April 2024 lacked the psychological and physical assessment of ‘X’. Following that, the Court instructed the Doctors at the Sion Hospital to constitute a new Medical Board. In addition to this, it was established that ‘X’ may undergo an abortion and that the potential risks of discontinuing the pregnancy would not be more severe than those of
a delivery to its full term.
ISSUES RAISED
- Is it feasible for one to terminate a pregnancy in situations concerning adolescents or sexual harassment victims after twenty-four weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act[17]?
- What essential role does the Medical Board play in maintaining an equilibrium between the constitutional liberties of women who are pregnant and the legislative
constraints?
- Does the minor’s authorization give importance over the viewpoint of the guardians
regarding abortion?
- In the case of a minor, how does the notion of autonomy in reproduction come into
effect?
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/ APPELLANT
- The counsel contended that the pregnancy was a result of sexual assault and had a profound impact on the minor’s physical and mental well-being, qualifying her for termination under Sections 3(2-B)[18] and 5[19] of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
- It was argued that delays in both judicial and administrative procedures intensified the
minor’s distress.
- The petitioner argued that refusing the termination infringed upon the minor’s fundamental rights as outlined in Article 21[20], especially regarding bodily autonomy
and dignity.
- Precedents such as ‘X v. State (NCT of Delhi)[21]’ and ‘Suchita Srivastava v.
Chandigarh Administration[22] was cited, emphasizing the importance of the pregnant
individual’s consent in decisions about reproduction.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
- The parties involved, including the State, pointed to legal restrictions in Section 3(2-B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act[23], which prohibits terminations past twenty-four weeks unless there are serious fetal anomalies.
- It was contended that the preliminary conclusions of the Medical Board supported the refusal of termination because there were no identified fetal abnormalities.
- Issues were highlighted regarding procedural protections and the importance of
safeguarding the lives of both the minor and the fetus.
CONTENTION
After the evaluation of ‘X’, a medical report was presented by the Medical Board of Sion, which was eventually utilized by the Court in the present case. The report stated that continuing the pregnancy to its full term would certainly impact the victim’s psychological and physical well-being. Considering that the minor in question is presently 29.6 weeks advanced in her pregnancy, the medical team furnished the Court with proof demonstrating that if the pregnancy were to eventually continue, it could trigger the victim’s psychological discomfort. As a consequence, the Court on 22nd of April overturned its prior ruling of 4th April 2024 and determined that ‘X’ has the right to terminate the pregnancy she was going through.
RATIONALE
The Court reached its conclusion based on the fact that ‘X’s mother, who wishes to end her child’s pregnancy, is just fourteen years old and only recognized her pregnancy when the fetus was around 24-25 weeks along. The Court pointed out that a prior ruling made on April 4, 2024, was erroneous because there had been no medical assessment evaluating ‘X’s current health condition, and the new medical report clearly stated that continuing the pregnancy against the minor’s wishes would negatively impact her physical and mental well-being, considering she is merely fourteen years old. In addition, the State has pledged to cover all expenses related to the medical procedure, including transportation costs and any necessary aftercare following the termination.
DEFECTS OF LAW
This particular case in discussion holds significance for cases related to sexual harassment towards minors that end up in pregnancy, since the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Amendment Act, 2021[24], authorizes abortion procedures for a maximum of 24 weeks. Despite the multiple limitations recognized under this Act, any procedure conducted beyond this period is regarded as prohibited. In this case, the minor had been abused sexually, and she did
not become acquainted with her pregnancy unless she was in the advanced stage of
twenty-four to twenty-five weeks of pregnancy.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[25], which encompasses autonomy about reproduction, decision, and esteem, affirms the right to an abortion. Considering the choice of whether a pregnancy should be terminated or not depends solely on the person who is enduring it. This fundamental right must remain intact for everyone, as it also helps to safeguard their psychosocial and physical well-being.[26]
This case exhibits the dearth of medical scrutiny, as the report by the Medical Board on the 3rd of April was generated without conducting an assessment. They resolved to call off the termination of the pregnancy simply because the embryo or fetus was over twenty-four weeks old. The ruling of the Court was inappropriate because the report disregarded the detrimental impact of gestation on the minor. Hence, neither the High Court nor the Medical Board can dismiss a pregnancy termination merely on the fact that the fetus was older than twenty-four weeks.[27] This decision of the court is inappropriate as it would have prevented numerous adolescents from seeking a medical abortion, particularly in cases where there had been sexual abuse. Moreover, a medical assessment is necessary when an individual who has attained an estimated gestational age of twenty-four weeks seeks to terminate her pregnancy. The individual who is pregnant might experience an extreme psychological pain and also emotionally drained if they deliver a child born through rape. Additionally, the pregnant individual’s viewpoint on their pregnancy ought to always be given the greatest
consideration.
The Court in the case of Z v. State of Bihar[28] emphasized the relevance of the responsiveness of time upon discovering that the State officials were unable to terminate the pregnancy during the stipulated twenty weeks. In the same way, in this case, the fetus of the victim, ‘X’,
was twenty-four weeks gestational when she was initially examined, but it grew to twenty-nine weeks. Because of the previous flawed assessment, the High Court delayed
concluding, and as a result of this, the potential risk of terminating the pregnancy increased.
INFERENCE
By bringing the legal provisions into compliance with constitutional safeguards, the court’s ruling demonstrates an advanced comprehension of the rights associated with reproduction. It underscores the necessity to overhaul the legislative and administrative framework to prioritize pregnant people’s independence as well as their dignity, and also the dignity and autonomy of marginalized communities and children.
Raima Roy Chowdhury
Surendranath Law College, University of Calcutta.
[1] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3(1), No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
[2] Id. at § 3(2-B).
[3] Id. at § 3(3).
[4] Id. at § 3(4)(a).
[5] Id. at § 3(2-C).
[6] Id. at § 5.
[7] Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 376, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
[8] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 4, No. 32, Acts of Parliament, 2012 (India).
[9] Id. at § 8.
[10] Id. at § 12.
[11] India Const. art. 21.
[12] India Lodged Average 86 Rapes Daily, 49 Offences Against Women per Hour in 2021: NCRB Data, The Hindu (New Delhi), Aug. 31,2022.
[13] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
[14] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
[15] India Const. art. 21.
[16] A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra, No. 5194 of 2024 (Indian Kanoon 2024).
[17] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
[18] Id. at § 3(2-B).
[19] Id. at § 3(5).
[20] India Const. art. 21.
[21] X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC 433.
[22] Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 9 SCC 1 (India).
[23] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3(2-B), No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
[24] Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, No. 8, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
[25] India Const. art. 21.
[26] X v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 9 SCC 433.
[27] XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2023) SCC 1573.
[28] Z v. State of Bihar, (2018) 11 SCC 572.