The Kerala High Court on Monday allowed the medical termination of a 26-week pregnant minor rape victim. A single bench of Justice P.V. Asha heard the civil writ petition, and recorded that the continuation of the pregnancy is contrary to the safety and interests of the victim, who is only 15.

The minor rape victim had approached the Court along with her parents, pointing out that the girl is carrying about 23 weeks of pregnancy and that continuation of her pregnancy would be contrary to her interest.

The FIR has been lodged in Thrikodithanam Police Station, in respect of the incident. The writ petition is filed producing and medical reports dated December 9, 2020, and December 15, 2020. As per report, the gestational age was found to be 22 weeks and 6 days as of December 9, 2020.

It is stated that victim girl is not mentally prepared to accept the pregnancy and that there is high risk in the event of continuation of her pregnancy as she has been subjected to the trauma of sexual assault.

When the matter came up for admission on December 29, 2020, this Court passed an interim order directing the District Medical Officer, Kottayam to constitute a medical board with all specialists required to conduct medical termination of pregnancy and file a report before this court traversing through the entire aspects.

The Court held that as per Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, it is allowed to terminate pregnancy beyond the gestation period of 20 weeks, where it is necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.

The Court also relied on a host of precedents of A V. Union of India: (2018)4 SCC 75, Sarmishtha Chakrabortty v. Union of India: (2018) 13 SCC 339, among others, where the Apex Court stepped in for the safety of the woman and allowed for the medical termination of pregnancy although the gestational period was around 25-26 weeks.

The Apex Court had repeatedly upheld the medical termination where it was found that there existed threats of severe mental injury to the woman and multiple complex problems to the child, if born alive.

The High Court noted that in view of the trauma that the minor girl has undergone, she is not prepared to deliver a child in this situation. It was also the opinion of the medical board that the continuance of pregnancy shall cause high risk and post-traumatic stress disorders to the minor girl. 

Therefore, the Court directed the Superintendent of Government Medical College, Kottayam to see that the termination of pregnancy of the minor girl- the 3rd petitioner is undertaken by competent doctors under his/her supervision.

Also Read: Tripura HC orders Rs 10 lakh compensation to mother of deceased lawyer who died due to medical negligence

There will be a further direction to the doctors to take the tissue of the foetus for DNA identification and to maintain the same intact for future purposes, especially due to the fact that a criminal case is pending in the instant case. If the child is born alive, despite the attempts at medical termination of the pregnancy, the doctors shall ensure that everything, which is reasonably possible and feasible in the circumstances and in contemplation of the law prescribed for the purpose, is offered to such child so that he/ she develops into a healthy child.

New Delhi (ILNS): The Kerala High Court today extended its stay order on a trial at the Additional Sessions Court in Ernakulam, where a female actor has filed a complaint of rape against Malayalam actor Dileep and others. The stay on the trial has been extended to November 16.

The victim actor, as well as the state government, have prayed before the Court to transfer the case from the present trial Court.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan considered the plea of the survivor actor and the state government held that that plea will also be considered again on November 16. 

Earlier, the high court had deferred the trial proceedings till today and today it was extended again, because the senior government pleader, who appeared for the state government, is presently under quarantine. 

The trial of the case was being considered by the Additional Sessions Court in Ernakulam. An allegation was made that this court has been showing a discriminatory approach. The Government also argued that a fair trial in the case would not be possible before the Additional Special Sessions Judge. 

The Special Prosecutor appointed to conduct the trial had faced extreme difficulties during the trial due to the hostile and partisan attitude of the Sessions Court.

Further, the survivor was harassed during the trial by the Counsel of accused Dileep. The counsel was asking defamatory questions to the victim. Even then the court didn’t stop him.

-India Legal Bureau