In the present case, however, a medical panel informed the Court there were serious health risks involved in going through with the termination of the pregnancy which was at 32 weeks when the matter was heard on July 24.
The panel acknowledged that continuing with the pregnancy would impact the mental and physical well-being of the teenager, but added there cannot be any termination of such a late-stage pregnancy without serious health complications.
The Court, therefore, counselled the girl (a victim of statutory rape) and her family about the risks associated with terminating a pregnancy at 32 weeks. Ultimately, the girl and her parents decided to continue with the pregnancy and explore giving up the child for adoption.
“The Court decided to counsel the girl and her relatives in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the counsel on behalf of the State. The court explained to the petitioner the risks involved in the termination due to the late stage of pregnancy. The petitioner and the relatives upon being made to understand the risks to the life of the petitioner and future risks with regard to losing the ability to be pregnant, subsequently opted to deliver the child instead of terminating the said pregnancy. The girl and her mother were both of the opinion that they would like to put the child for adoption post-parturition,” the Court’s order recounted, in this regard.
The Court proceeded to issue directions to enable the delivery of the child while also giving strict instructions to maintain confidentiality.
The State must ensure that the adoption process too is carried out efficiently and that the ‘best interests of the child’ principle is followed, the Court added.
“Even if she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption, the duty lies on the State to ensure that it is carried out as privately as possible and also to ensure that the child, being a citizen of this land, is not stripped of the fundamental rights that are enshrined in the Constitution,” the Court said.
Source: Barandbench
