The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised the Centre for filing a curative petition against its earlier order permitting the termination of a 31-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor. The case, which has drawn national attention, has raised wider questions on reproductive rights and the autonomy of survivors in deciding their future.
During the hearing, the bench expressed sharp disapproval of the government’s stand, stressing that such matters must prioritise the victim’s choice and dignity. The court emphasised that in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape, rigid legal timelines should not become a barrier to relief. It observed that laws must evolve with changing realities and be responsive to the needs of victims.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The judges noted that the trauma suffered by the minor cannot be compensated and criticised the Centre for challenging the earlier order. The court remarked that only the victim or her family had the moral standing to contest such decisions, not the state. It further stated that the government should respect individual autonomy and allow families to make informed choices based on medical and psychological guidance.
The bench also suggested that the state should focus on providing counselling and psychiatric support rather than litigating against the victim’s decision. It indicated that families should be given complete medical information and then allowed to decide whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy, especially when mental and physical health risks are involved.
The government, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, argued that termination at such an advanced stage was medically not feasible and that the foetus could be born with severe complications, suggesting adoption as an alternative. However, the court remained unconvinced by the state’s position, reiterating that compassion and consent must guide such sensitive cases.
The hearing has now reignited debate on the need to revisit existing legal provisions surrounding late-term termination in cases of sexual violence, with the court urging reforms to ensure that the law remains humane and adaptive.
