Sameeksha Dubey
In the State of Rajasthan v S case, the rape victim has filed to seek permission for an abortion from the Rajasthan High Court.
The case was filed on May 1, 2020, and the bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Pushpendra Singh Bhati heard the matter.
The appellants are the State of Rajasthan through the chief secretary, Government of Rajasthan; the secretary, department of medical and health, the district collector; Controller of a medical college; Chief medical and health officer, Churu and SHO police station, Bidasar.
It has writ petitioners – S and Navjeevan Sansthan through its Prabhari.
The writ petitioner S was sexually assaulted and unfortunately conceived. The minor, through her mother, filed an application for termination of her pregnancy. Court also indicated that the decision should be made based on her medical fitness.
A medical board was formed for her examination in Churu whose report made it clear that she was pregnant. This opinion was put in front of the special court.
The special court transferred the case to the court of special judge, POSCO act cases and it rejected the application because the length of gestation was gone beyond the threshold.
However, the learned single bench rejected the writ petition because it was violating the fundamental rights prescribed in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The termination was denied, and adoption by Navjeevan Sansthan was allowed. Para 26-33 of the judgment has a very relevant approach in deciding this case.
The State government has moved to this court against the above judgment who claimed that this judgment abridges the fundamental right of victims of rape. Additional advocate general referred to several cases in support of his contention and appeal.
Para 32 of the judgment made it clear that the discretion of the learned single judge bench regarding the termination of pregnancy was swayed by two factors:
The development of the foetus to such an extent will lead to violation of Art 21 of the Indian Constitution as the child in the womb has the right to life.
Applicant society has volunteered to take care of the child which results in believing that the child will be brought up with proper care.
Senior judge Sandeep Mehta heard the case even after the holiday and gave an order for the formation of a medical board whose report should be submitted on December 31, and the victim must appear in the next hearing.
The case is still in the process and the decision is pending.
JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS:
[embeddoc url=”https://lawinsider.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/17TH-OCTOBER-JUDGMENT-2019.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google”]