State To Ensure Adoption Is Carried Out As Privately As Possible: Allahabad HC On Minor Victim Opting For Adoption Over Terminating 3rd Trimester Pregnancy
The Allahabad High Court directed the State authorities to carry out the adoption process privately after a 31-week-old pregnant minor victim opted to deliver the child instead of terminating the pregnancy.
Keeping in mind the 15-year-old victim's (petitioner) decision, the Court directed the District Magistrate to ensure that the State bears all the medical and ancillary expenses of the petitioner and her family.
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla observed, “This Court is also of the opinion that a woman’s decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself…Here, her consent reigns supreme. 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.”
Advocate Desh Ratan Chaudhary appeared for the petitioner, while SC Birendra Prasad Shukla represented the State.
The FIR lodged by the maternal uncle of the petitioner led to the investigation wherein it was found that the petitioner was subjected to sexual intercourse. Subsequently, the case was converted to Sections 363 and 376 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
An ultrasonography revealed the advanced stage of the pregnancy, prompting the petitioner to seek a writ mandamus to terminate the pregnancy.
The High Court directed the formation of a medical board comprising experts from various departments, including Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Anaesthesia, and Radio Diagnosis, to evaluate the feasibility and advisability of the pregnancy termination. The report showed that there were significant risks involved and that termination at the stage could endanger the petitioner's life and that the fetus was viable.
“The Courts have held that the choice of terminating one’s pregnancy is a serious and delicate issue that needs to be dealt with a caring touch and in a humane manner. This Court is also of the opinion that a woman’s decision in whether or not to go ahead with the termination of her pregnancy is a decision that is to be taken by no one but herself,” the Court observed.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra which placed emphasis on the State’s liability for bearing the expenses of the victims unwilling to go ahead with the termination of pregnancy because of the risks involved. The Apex Court ensured that the rights of the victim were placed on the highest pedestal, keeping in mind the pregnant girl’s ‘Right to Bodily Autonomy’ enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution and gave appropriate directions with regard to the adoption process.
“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 postparturition,” the Court remarked.
Considering that the petitioner and her mother decided to give up the child for adoption, the Court directed the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) to take appropriate steps in tandem with the applicable provisions of law to facilitate and expedite the process of adoption.
Consequently, the Bench stated, “Keeping in mind the delicate nature of the issue involved, all the authorities concerned are directed to ensure complete secrecy in the matter so that the privacy of the petitioner and her family are maintained and the identity of the petitioner is not revealed in any manner whatsoever.”
Accordingly, the High Court listed the matter for further hearing on August 28, 2024.
Cause Title: X (Minor Victim) v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Desh Ratan Chaudhary and Siddharth Chaudhary
Respondents: SC Birendra Prasad Shukla
