The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) challenging a Delhi High Court order that permitted a 14-year-old rape survivor to terminate her 28-week pregnancy. The apex court refused to interfere with the high court's decision, which was based on the recommendations of a medical board.
Background of the Case
The minor girl, a victim of sexual assault, had sought termination of her pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. The Delhi High Court, after considering the report of a medical board constituted by AIIMS, allowed the termination on November 13. The board had opined that continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk to the girl's physical and mental health.
AIIMS' Appeal and Supreme Court's Verdict
AIIMS approached the Supreme Court arguing that the pregnancy had crossed the 24-week limit prescribed under the MTP Act and that termination at 28 weeks could be risky. However, a bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Sanjay Kumar observed that the high court had already weighed the medical opinion and the girl's welfare. The bench stated, "We are not inclined to entertain this petition. The high court has passed a well-reasoned order."
Medical and Legal Implications
The case highlights the delicate balance between legal provisions and medical ethics in cases of late-term pregnancies. The MTP Act allows termination beyond 24 weeks only in exceptional circumstances, with the approval of a medical board. In this instance, the board found that the physical and psychological impact on the minor warranted the procedure.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to prioritizing the health and rights of minor survivors of sexual assault. Legal experts note that the ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, where the well-being of the victim outweighs statutory limitations.
Reactions and Next Steps
Following the verdict, the girl's legal team expressed relief, stating that the decision would allow her to move forward with her life. AIIMS has been directed to carry out the termination procedure in accordance with medical protocols. The hospital is expected to provide necessary post-operative care and counseling.
The case has reignited discussions on the need for amendments to the MTP Act to address the realities of sexual violence against minors. Activists argue that the law should be more flexible to accommodate the unique circumstances of such cases.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's refusal to intervene reaffirms the high court's order, ensuring that the minor girl receives timely medical intervention. The judgment emphasizes that the rights and health of the victim remain paramount, even when faced with legal and medical complexities.
