The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted permission for the termination of a 28-week pregnancy of a minor sexual assault victim, citing the significant mental trauma the victim endured. The court emphasized the right to life, which extends to living free from mental and emotional trauma. The victim, who was diagnosed with Mild Intellectual Disability (MID), faced extreme psychological distress, rendering her unable to cope with the trauma of childbirth.

Facts of the Case

The case concerns a minor who became pregnant due to a sexual assault. The survivor, who is mentally challenged, was placed in a shelter home during the investigation. The pregnancy had reached a gestational age of 28–29 weeks, and the victim’s guardian—her father—sought the intervention of the court for the termination of the pregnancy, citing the survivor’s mental incapacity and inability to endure the physical and emotional trauma of childbirth.

A medical report submitted to the court indicated that the survivor had severe anemia with a hemoglobin level of 8.2 gm/dl and required medical intervention to stabilize her before any further procedures could take place. The medical board further noted that if the baby were to survive birth, it would face significant health complications due to its premature gestational age. The court was called upon to decide whether the termination of the pregnancy could be allowed despite the advanced stage of gestation.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, the survivor’s mother, represented through her guardian (father), argued that the termination of the pregnancy was necessary due to the severe psychological and physical toll it would have on the survivor. Given the victim’s mental disability, she was unable to comprehend the implications of carrying the pregnancy to term and childbirth, which would only increase her trauma. The petitioner emphasized that the survivor’s right to life, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, includes the right to live free from mental anguish and trauma.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondents, represented by the concerned state authorities, initially opposed the petition, citing the advanced stage of the pregnancy, which had reached 28–29 weeks. They referenced the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which set limits on the permissible time for termination. However, they also acknowledged the survivor’s mental condition and the severe health risks to both the mother and the fetus.

Court’s Observations

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court, led by Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani, observed that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is not confined to mere survival but extends to a life free from mental trauma and unnecessary suffering. The court relied on the case A (Mother of X) vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, SLPL (C) No. 9163/2024 and the judgment in XYZ vs. State of Gujarat (2023) where the Supreme Court of India had permitted the termination of a pregnancy in a similar situation involving a minor rape victim at 27-28 weeks of gestation.

In its ruling, the court emphasized that “the fundamental right to life of a person… guarantees a life which is free from mental trauma and worries. It is the obligation of the state to take all steps for ensuring that a citizen within his own standard of his life lives free from worries.” The court noted that not only the victim but also her entire family and loved ones were undergoing extreme emotional distress due to the situation.

Court’s Decision

The court allowed the medical termination of the pregnancy after considering the medical board’s report and the victim’s mental and physical condition. The following directions were issued:

1. The Director of Health Services, Kashmir, in coordination with the associated hospital, was instructed to provide necessary medical intervention to raise the victim’s hemoglobin levels and stabilize her for the procedure.
2. The petitioner was to be admitted to a tertiary care maternity hospital with NICU facilities, specifically LD Hospital, Srinagar, for the termination procedure, with provisions for the fetus to receive immediate care if born alive.
3. The court ordered that the victim’s post-operative care, along with that of the newborn if born alive, be provided by the Health and Social Welfare Departments, including necessary medical treatments and adoption arrangements.
4. The court directed the District Legal Services Authority to initiate the compensation proceedings for the victim under the Victim Compensation Scheme.

The court concluded by emphasizing that the state was obligated to ensure that the victim’s rights were respected and upheld through appropriate health and social welfare interventions. The petition was disposed of with the direction that all necessary steps be taken to execute the termination and provide for the welfare of the victim and any newborn.

Credits: Deeksha Rai