ABC v. State of Maharashtra

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard fnalll.

2. At the outset, it is required to be noted that since the allegations leveled bl the petitioner are in respect of the alleged sexual assault, the identitl of the petitioner needs to be concealed, therefore, the petitioner is referred to as “ABC”. The Registrl is directed to maintain the record accordingll. BGP. 1 of 15

3. Bl this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extraordinarl writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to permit termination of pregnancl of her minor daughter aged about seventeen lears and few months. The said daughter of the petitioner was victim of alleged rape resulting in to the pregnencl which is now of more than twentl weeks duration and therefore petitioner has been compelled to knock the doors of this Court.

4. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was constrained to cause registration of an FIR on 02.03.2021 against accused person for ofences under section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 4, 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Ofences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), for the sexual assault and rape sufered bl her minor daughter. As per the FIR, the daughter of the petitioner was aged about seventeen lears and two months old when the incident of rape took place, resulting in pregnancl. According to the petitioner, she and her husband discovered about pregnancl of her daughter when she missed her menstrual clcles for about four months and she was required to be taken BGP. 2 of 15 to the doctor. Since the daughter of the petitioner is mentalll challenged, the fact about the said rape and consequent pregnancl could not be discovered earlier. After she was taken to the doctor and the pregnancl was revealed, the daughter of the petitioner divulged how she was repeatedll sexualll assaulted and raped bl the accused, resulting in the pregnancl.

5. As a consequence, aforesaid FIR dated 02.03.2021 stood registered against the accused. Since the pregnancl of the daughter of the petitioner exceeded twentl weeks, she had to approach this Court. Copl of the FIR along with sonographl report and certifcate of the doctor stating that the daughter of the petitioner as on 06.03.2021 was pregnant of 20.[6] weeks have been annexed with the petition.

6. When this petition was listed before this Court on 10.03.2021, notices were issued to the respondents and respondent No.2 i.e. the Civil Surgeon of Ratnagiri District Hospital was directed to constitute a Medical Board/ Committee bl invoking section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancl Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1971”). The said committee was directed to medicalll examine the BGP. 3 of 15 daughter of the petitioner and send the report to the learned APP appearing for the respondents, so that it would be made available before this Court for perusal.

7. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, learned APP tendered across the Bar a copl of the report in sealed envelope of the committee, same is taken on record. In said report, it is recommended bl the committee that medical termination of pregnancl could be undertaken on humanitarian grounds as the pregnancl was the result of alleged sexual assault of the victim who is less than eighteen lears of age and sufers from mild mental disabilitl.

8. Mr. Karansingh B. Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court ought to exercise extraordinarl writ jurisdiction to allow the pralers made in the writ petition. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the provisions of sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 to submit that in view of the aforesaid report of the committee constituted in terms of order dated 10.03.2021 passed bl this Court, present writ petition deserves to be allowed and a direction needs to be BGP. 4 of 15 given to the respondent No.2 to carrl out medical termination of pregnancl of the daughter of the petitioner. Additionalll, learned counsel submits that since the daughter of the petitioner is victim of rape resulting in the pregnancl, the respondent No.1 ought to be directed to collect the tissue and blood sample of the fetus for conducting DNA tests that would be part of evidence during prosecution of the accused in terms of the aforesaid FIR registered on 02.03.2021. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the case of 1) Rubina Kasam Phansopkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 765, 2) “ABC” through her Guardian Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2018 (4) Mh.L.J. 374, 3) Pramod A. Solanke Vs. Dean of B. J. Govt. Medical College & Sasoon Hospital, Pune, 2020 SCC Online Bom. 639 and 4) Z Vs. State of Bihar and others, (2018) 11 SCC 572 as also on 5) Suchita Srivastava and another Vs. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that daughter of the petitioner deserved to be compensated in terms of the victim compensation scheme framed bl the BGP. 5 of 15 Respondent – State under section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court to “The Manodhairla Scheme” framed bl the Respondent- State as per Government Resolution dated 01.08.2017, for palment of compensation to victims like the daughter of the petitioner herein. On this basis, it was submitted that maximum amount of compensation palable under the said scheme ought to be directed to be paid to the daughter of the petitioner.

10. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent - State submitted that the committee constituted in terms of the order passed bl this Court had recommended medical termination of pregnancl of the daughter of the petitioner. He further submitted that although the pregnancl has crossed the duration of twentl weeks, this Court mal pass orders in terms of the law brought to the notice of this Court as per the judgments relied upon bl the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

11. Before considering the facts of the present case and the pralers made in the present writ petition, it would be BGP. 6 of 15 appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971 and the law laid down in that context. Sections, 3, 4 and 5 of the Act of 1971 provide for contingencies in which pregnancies mal be terminated bl registered medical practitioners. Section 3(2) provides that a pregnancl mal be terminated bl a registered medical practitioner where the length of the pregnancl does not exceed twelve weeks or where the length of the pregnancl exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twentl weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that continuance of the pregnancl involves a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or it mal cause grave injurl to her phlsical or mental health. Explanation-1 to the aforesaid provision is of signifcance in the present case, because it specifcalll states that where anl pregnancl is alleged to have been caused bl rape, the anguish caused bl such pregnancl shall be presumed to constitute a grave injurl to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

12. It is clear from the said provision that termination of pregnancl can be carried out, if the contingencies mentioned in section 3 of the Act of 1971 are satisfed. But, since there is a BGP. 7 of 15 limit of the length of pregnancl specifed upto twentl weeks, termination of pregnancl whose length is belond twentl weeks needs to be considered in the facts and circumstances in the present case. In the case of the Rubina Kasam Phansopkar (supra), this Court took note of the position of law that in certain cases Superior Courts could direct medical termination of pregnancl whose length is belond twentl weeks. In order to do so, the Court is required to call for a report from a committee dull constituted to examine the question as to whether a pregnancl belond twentl weeks could be permitted to be terminated. In the said case, after having recognized such settled position of law that a Constitutional Court while exercising writ jurisdiction could grant such permission, after calling for report from Medical Board comprising of suitabll qualifed doctors, on the facts of the said case this Court declined to grant permission for termination of the pregnancl. Nonetheless, the power available with this Court to grant such permission was recognized.

13. In the case of “ABC” through her Guardian (supra), in a similar situation, where the victim person was a minor girl and victim of rape, this Court called for a report from BGP. 8 of 15 a committee of doctors of the Government Medical College and upon recommendation of such committee for medical termination of pregnancl passed an order allowing the writ petition. Similarll, in the case of Pramod A Solanke (supra), this Court after calling for report of a Medical Board permitted termination of pregnancl which was twentl four weeks and three dals of length. In the said case also the pregnant girl was minor and a victim of rape. In the case of Sangita Sandip Dahilkar (supra) also, this Court granted permission for medical termination of pregnancl the length of which was belond twentl weeks after calling for report from a committee which recommended such termination of pregnancl.

14. Thus, it is settled position of law that in certain circumstances, this Court being a Constitutional Court has the power under writ jurisdiction to direct termination of pregnancl, the length of which being belond twentl weeks. The requirement of law is that a report needs to be called from a committee of qualifed medical professionals of a Government facilitl as to the mental and phlsical health of the pregnant girl/woman and recommendation on the question of termination of such pregnancl, length of which is belond twentl weeks. It BGP. 9 of 15 is for this reason that while issuing notice on 10.03.2021, we had directed the respondent No.2 – Civil Surgeon, Ratnagiri District Hospital to constitute a committee to medicalll examine the victim i.e. minor daughter of the petitioner herein and to send a report to this Court. In pursuance of the said order, a report dated 12.03.2021 has been placed before this Court. The members of the Medical Board/Committee who reviewed the case of daughter of the petitioner in the present case were as followed:- Sr. No. Name Designation Specialization Signature 1 Dr. Sanghamitra M. Gawade Civil Surgeon Ratnagiri M.S.ENT Sd/-

15. It is stated in the said report submitted bl the aforesaid Medical Board that the daughter of the petitioner is a BGP. 10 of 15 minor, who is pregnant, as a consequence of rape and that on IQ testing, she has been found to be having mild intellectual disabilitl. After recording the investigations conducted on the daughter of the petitioner, it is recorded that she is phlsicalll ft for the termination of the pregnancl and the recommendation of the Medical Board reads as follows:- “Pregnancl is caused bl sexual assault, her age is less than 18 lears. She has mild intellectual disabilitl. On humanitarian ground MTP is recommended.”