The Supreme Court of India on Thursday hit out at the Centre for filing a curative plea against its earlier order allowing a 15-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 31-week pregnancy. The court made it clear that such a decision should rest with the survivor and her family, not the state. Chief Justice Surya Kant strongly objected to the government’s move, saying, “Give respect to citizens, madam… You have no locus to challenge… only the victim or her family can challenge.” The bench stressed that the trauma faced by the minor cannot be measured, adding that nothing can truly compensate for what she has gone through.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi also questioned the government’s stance, saying, “We respect individual choices and so should you…” The court said that parents should be given medical information and allowed to decide what is best for the child’s physical and mental health.
Call to rethink law on time limits
In a significant observation, the court suggested that existing laws may need to evolve. It said, “When there is a pregnancy due to rape, there should not be time limit. Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving time.”
The government, represented by law officers, argued that terminating the pregnancy at this stage could be risky. It suggested that the minor could carry the pregnancy to term and give the child up for adoption. However, the court did not agree with this approach, pointing out the emotional and psychological impact on the survivor.
‘Let the child live with dignity’
The bench made a powerful observation during the hearing, stating, “If it has become a fight between a child and foetus, then the child should be allowed to live with dignity.” It also highlighted that the teenager should be focusing on her future, not forced into motherhood after such trauma.
Earlier order allowed termination
The Supreme Court had earlier permitted the minor to medically terminate her pregnancy, noting her mental distress and the severe impact on her life. The court had said forcing her to continue the pregnancy would violate her right to live with dignity.
Also Read: SC questions rape charge in live-in relationship, says 'they had child together, now she says rape?'
