The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a 30-week-old fetus is fully developed and therefore possesses the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. This ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by a rape survivor seeking permission to terminate her 30-week-old pregnancy.

 

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, noted, "The medical report indicates that the fetus is gaining weight and fat and is closer to its natural birth. Vital organs, like the brain and lungs, are almost fully developed, preparing for life outside the womb. The fetus has, in fact, life with heartbeats, hence termination of pregnancy, at this stage, is not advisable and possible. The fully developed fetus also has the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to enter this world and live a healthy life without any abnormalities."

 

Case Background

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sangeeta Kumari Sharma, while Additional Attorney General Vigyan Shah appeared for the respondent. An FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered, alleging rape, and the petitioner asserted that the child was conceived as a result of the offense. She argued that carrying the pregnancy to term would serve as a constant reminder of the crime committed against her, adversely affecting her physical and mental health as well as her social well-being. The petitioner further stated that she and her family lacked the resources to care for the child if born.

 

Medical Board’s Opinion

The Medical Board opined that the petitioner’s pregnancy could technically be terminated through a preterm delivery, but such an intervention posed significant risks to both the petitioner and the fetus. The Board stated that surgical intervention could lead to a premature birth with potential neonatal complications and a high risk to the petitioner’s health. The Court noted the advanced gestational age of the pregnancy and referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Union of India, where permission to terminate a 28-week-old pregnancy was denied.

 

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Court declined to grant permission for termination of the pregnancy, citing the Medical Board’s unrebutted opinion that the procedure at this stage would likely result in a premature delivery, affecting the neurodevelopment of the unborn child and endangering the petitioner’s health. 

 

“Although the law recognizes the autonomy of a woman to determine whether she wants to continue with the pregnancy or not, the circumstances in the present case do not permit termination of pregnancy because it may result in premature delivery of the unborn child which may further subject him/her to suffer from abnormality as a result of such attempt," the Court observed. The Court further remarked that the petitioner would have the option to give the child up for adoption after birth, following the procedure prescribed by law.

 

The High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the advanced gestational age and risks involved in terminating the pregnancy. However, it granted the petitioner the liberty to put the child up for adoption if she so desired.

 

 

Cause Title: Victim vs. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:47791

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17348/2024

Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand