New Delhi: In the medical termination of a 17-year-old girl’s 30-week pregnancy, the Supreme Court on Friday said courts cannot compel a woman, let alone a minor, to continue with the pregnancy.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that the girl got pregnant while she was in a relationship with a neighborhood boy and sought medical termination of her pregnancy.
The bench asked the JJ Hospital in Mumbai to carry out the medical termination of the minor’s pregnancy while ensuring that all necessary medical safeguards are followed.
The court said that the court took into account the fact that the right of the minor child to continue with the pregnancy which was prima facie “illegitimate” as she herself was a minor and faced the pregnancy due to an adverse situation arising from the relationship.
It said the issue was not whether the relationship was consensual or the result of sexual assault.
“In the given case, the right of the minor child to continue with the pregnancy, which is ex-facie illegitimate, as she is a minor and has to face this unfortunate situation of pregnancy because of the relationship she had, has to be considered. The question is not whether the relationship was consensual or whether it was a case of sexual assault. In fact, it is not a fact that the child who is supposed to be the second child does not want to be the second child. child,” the bench said.
The Supreme Court took note of the report of the hospital’s medical board that there was no danger to the life of the child and the mother if the delivery was allowed after the due date.
“If the mother’s interest is to be taken into account, then sufficient emphasis must be placed on her reproductive autonomy. The court cannot force any woman, let alone a minor child, to complete a pregnancy if she does not intend to do so,” said the judge.
During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna highlighted the difficult questions of morality and law that the court has to deal with and said that unless the court deals with medical termination, people will visit quacks and illegal medical facilities and it will not be safe for them.
He stated that although the birth of a child ultimately leads to life, what was decisive in the present case was the clear and consistent reluctance of the minor to continue with the pregnancy.
“It’s hard for us too, but there is no other way. Should we force her to give birth to a child? Because the child that is born will also be life in the end.”
“There is another question; if she can terminate the pregnancy at 24 weeks, why not at 30 weeks? After all, she does not want to continue the pregnancy. Bottom line, she does not want to give birth, that is the difficulty,” the bench noted.
It added that sometimes it takes time to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
“There are so many cases where the termination is beyond what is stipulated in the MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) Act, 1971. And the doctors say we will not do it.
“Where will such people go? To quacks and unlicensed doctors. That will be dangerous,” it said.
The counsel for the Maharashtra government said that according to the medical reports, even if the child could be born today, the child would be alive and one of the views of the high court was that the child could be given to an orphanage if the mother did not want to keep it.
The Supreme Court said it will vacate the operational part of the order in favor of the hospital and a detailed order will follow.
