Read Time: 09 minutes

The Orissa High Court bench of Justice SK Panigrahi has refused to allow a 20-year old gang-rape victim to terminate her pregnancy caused subsequent to the assault  on her. The Court said, “Although this court is painfully conscious of the possible impact of this decision on the life of the petitioner, it is bound by the legal mandate."

The victim is a resident of Bania village under Baideswar police limits of Cuttack district, who while returning to her house on April 14, was gagged by a towel and forcibly taken to the nearby school where accused persons raped her and threatened to kill her if she disclosed the matter to her family members or police.

It is alleged that though the local police had followed the course of law in registering cases and nabbing the perpetrators of the crime, it failed to sensitize the victim and her family members to seek free legal assistance from legal service authorities, as a result of which there was delay on the victim's part to approach Court.

The victim, who had an unwanted pregnancy, had later approached the High Court for termination of pregnancy. However, the Court rejected the plea as the length of pregnancy had crossed the legally permissible 26 weeks' time limit for termination.

Delay in the prayer had, therefore, resulted in the dismissal of her prayer.

The Court referred to State of Rajasthan vs S, wherein it was held that the infringement of the fundamental right-to-life of the survivor heavily outweighed the right-to-life of the child in the womb.

“In the comparative evaluation, the infringement of the fundamental right to life of the victim heavily outweighs the right to life of the child in the womb. Therefore, we may reiterate that the fundamental right of the pregnant woman i.e. the child writ petitioner to get the pregnancy terminated would heavily outweigh the right of the foetus to be born,” the Court said.

However, in the case at hand, there was no opinion of any medical practitioner that continuance of pregnancy would involve risk to her life or grave injury to her physical and mental health, it said, and further noted that the 24-weeks time-line required under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act had been crossed.

The Court still noted that the victim is being forced to bear an unwanted child and that her request should have been acceded to over and above the right to life of the child yet to be born, and observed,

“Though this issue has, time and again, knocks at the judicial threshold, it is still crying for an unperplexed solution by way of suitable amendment in the statute governing the field,” the Court added, and went on to acknowledge the possible traumas, the victim is undergoing and would face, in future and the mental agony and fear of social ostracism that can take a toll on the victim and even on the unborn child.

The Court picked on the Police for contributing to the delay and said, “It is imperative that every policeman should be given proper understanding of the working of legal services authority at different levels.”

It suggested that the legal services authority could provide training modules to the police stations to sensitise and make the police officers aware of the role and functions of the authority.

Further, it said that the legal services authority at district levels are also required to coordinate with the police department in setting up legal aid booths or providing legal services helpline numbers at each and every police station. The helpline numbers could be displayed in each police station to assist the victims.

The Court stated that while the situation of the victim is heart wrenching, the pregnancy cannot be terminated and ordered the state to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-  as compensation to the victim.

“It leaves a scar on the psyche of the victim and an adverse impact on society. In the present case, the agony experienced by the petitioner has left a more visible impact. Only the sufferer knows the extent of the suffering. It is heart-wrenching to imagine the situation of the petitioner and what lies ahead of her. This Court does feel that her welfare is, therefore, paramount consideration for this court,” the Court concluded.

Cause Title: X v. State of Odisha