Can the family members of a rape victim be asked to give consent for termination of her pregnancy or should it be left to her alone? This question will be deliberated upon by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The case in question is that of a 35- year-old HIV-positive destitute woman, who was raped on the streets of Patna. She is 26-weeks pregnant.
The apex court on Monday wanted to know why the Patna High Court and Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) had sought the consent of her father and husband when the victim herself wanted to terminate the pregnancy, knowing that she had no family support.
She was deserted by her husband, while her parents had refused to accept her for various reasons, including her allegedly unstable mental state.
As the matter came up for hearing, a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar was informed about these facts by her counsel.
The submission evoked a sharp reaction from the bench, while posting the matter for hearing on Tuesday:
...in the unfortunate circumstance, when a woman is raped and she is pregnant, her dignity to life is affected. How can her brother, father or husband be asked to give a (sic) consent? It is she who will mother the child.
The issue arose after the victim's advocate Vrinda Grover told the bench that the woman deserved compensation from the Bihar government as she had gone to the PMCH for terminating her pregnancy when she was in her 17th week.
She had said that she would terminate her pregnancy. The hospital asked for the consent of the father which he gave, though it was not required under the law.Vrinda Grover, lawyer and human rights activist
To this, the bench asked Additional Solicitor Generals Tushar Mehta and PS Narsimha, "How is the father's consent required?"
Mehta said it was not required in this case. Grover also mentioned that when the woman had approached the high court, it had also asked her father and husband for consent.
Meanwhile, the medical board of AIIMS, which was asked by the SC to examine the victim, mentioned in its report that she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy.
The apex court had earlier said it would not go into the orders of the high court, which had held that the medical board's report had stated that it would be unsafe for the life of the petitioner and there was a compelling responsibility of the state to keep the child alive.
The high court had said that the woman's pregnancy had crossed the legal embargo of 20 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
Grover had said the high court had failed to appreciate that the woman was 35 years of age and completely fit to make her own reproductive choices without any interference.
In her plea, the woman said she was a destitute and had come to know about her pregnancy for the first time around the 13th week, and that too after she was rescued by Shanti Kutir, a Women's Rehabilitation Centre, and taken a pregnancy test on 26 January.
The woman said she had expressed her desire to terminate her pregnancy on 4 March to a research officer of Koshish, a Field Action Project of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, with whom she was in touch.
However, it was only after her confession to the superintendent of the shelter home that the pregnancy was the outcome of rape, that she made attempts to have it terminated at the hospital on 14 March.
According to the plea, the hospital refused to admit the woman owing to the lack of identity proof.
(With inputs from PTI)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)