The Orissa High Court has permitted a minor tribal girl, who suffers from sickle cell anaemia and epilepsy, to terminate a pregnancy resulting from rape.
While ruling on the case with regard to the permission sought by the victim to facilitate termination of her pregnancy, a single judge Bench of Justice S.K. Panigrahi directed the Odisha government to formulate and implement a standard operating procedure (SOP) for medical termination of pregnancy. The SOP should formally be notified and disseminated to all government and private healthcare institutions across the State, the court said.
The SOP should ensure a smooth and timely process for medical termination of pregnancy when required, removing avoidable delays, and preventing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles or drawn-out legal struggles, the High Court said.
The case details provided in the judgment state a Class 7 girl student, now aged 13, suffering from sickle cell anaemia and epilepsy, was repeatedly raped by a man in Kandhamal district in August 2024.
Due to threats from the accused, she did not disclose the assault to her parents or anyone else. The pregnancy was discovered at a late stage, beyond the 24-week limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971. Further examinations in February 2025 in Kandhamal confirmed complications related to the pregnancy and the victim’s health issues.
Doctors at the MKCG Medical College Hospital, Berhampur, where the victim is undergoing treatment, have advised that carrying the pregnancy to full term, and giving birth, would pose a serious risk to the victim. Subsequently, the girl’s father sought the constitution of a medical board to assess her condition and the risks associated with the pregnancy, and allowed its termination, despite having exceeded the stipulated 24 weeks.
The medical board was unanimous in its opinion that the continuation of the pregnancy posed the risk of life-threatening complications, and would severely impact the minor’s physical and mental well-being.
Justice Panigrahi remarked on the MTP Act. “A society that views abortion solely through the lens of regulation fails to grasp its deeper significance. It is, above all, a matter of individual conscience of personal liberty, the kind of liberty that a just and democratic state must not only recognise but actively protect. The right to make decisions about one’s own body is not a privilege to be granted at the state’s discretion. It is a fundamental aspect of human dignity, one that no authority should presume to deny,” he said.
“In a case such as this, the ultimate authority rests with the individual whose body and future hangs in the balance. It is she who must bear the weight of the decision and it is she who must be afforded the dignity of choice. It is a fact that in the present case, the individual in question is a minor. Hence, her rights are being exercised by the guardian major. The role of the medical profession is not to dictate but to guide, to offer counsel where health is at stake, to intervene where risk arises, but never to stand as an obstacle between a person and their right to bodily autonomy,” Justice Panigrahi said.
On the role of the court in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape, the judge further observed that the court should intervene in a way that empowers the victim by granting them the authority to take decisions regarding their own body and future.
“In this case, there is a risk of complications in both termination [of pregnancy] and delivery. But when the law is faced with two difficult choices, it must take the path of the lesser evil. Forcing a 13-year-old to carry a pregnancy to term would place an unbearable burden on her body and mind, one that she is neither prepared for nor capable of bearing,” he said.
While termination is not without risk, it prevents the far graver consequences of childbirth and forced motherhood at an age where such responsibilities are unthinkable, Justice Panigrahi said.
The High Court indicated that delays due to court proceedings could further deteriorate health complicacies. “Where time is of the essence, the machinery of justice must recognise its own limits. The courts exist to correct injustice, not to impose delays where none are warranted,” the Orissa HC maintained.
Published – March 03, 2025 09:40 pm IST