Gujarat High Court: In a special criminal application, wherein the father of minor rape survivor was seeking termination of pregnancy of his minor daughter, the Single Judge Bench of Samir J. Dave, J., heeded to the advice of Medical Board and said that minor girl is 29 weeks 05 days pregnancy, therefore, it was advised against medical termination of pregnancy. The Court directed the departments concerned to extend all facilities to the minor girl as per policies of the State of Gujarat.
In the matter at hand, the petitioner was seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for termination of pregnancy of the minor girl.
In the previous Order , the Court had sought medical opinion of the Panel of Doctors to ascertain whether it is advisable to perform the procedure of medical termination of pregnancy over the minor rape survivor and to ascertain the medical condition of the foetus.
Upon examination of the minor rape survivor, the Medical Board opined that, the pregnancy is of 29 weeks 05 days, hence, termination of pregnancy was not advised, and no abnormality was detected by the Psychiatrist upon examination of the minor rape survivor.
The Court said that the minor girl will complete her age of 17 years within period of 10 days. Further, considering the applicant’s decision that the minor girl will stay at Nari Sarankshan Gruh, Rajkot Kanya Shala, till she delivers the child, the Court directed the Secretary, Women and Child Welfare Department, Sachivalaya, as well as the Additional Chief Secretary, Social Justice and Empowerment Department, Gandhinagar to take necessary steps to extend all the facilities available as per the policies of the State of Gujarat.
The Court also said that it is open for the minor girl that whenever she finds suitable to stay in the Nari Sarankshan Gruh, she can inform the officer concerned and further, the officer concerned was directed to take appropriate steps for her stay.
The State of Gujarat was directed to pay compensation to the minor rape survivor as per the prevailing policies of the State Government under the provisions, if she is entitled to, at the earliest. Considering the nature of the matter, the Court did not dispose of the matter and directed the departments concerned to submit a progress report before the Court from time to time.
[XXX v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 1708, Decided on 19-05-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Advocate Ilin Saraswat and Advocate Sikander Saiyed;
For the Respondents: Advocate Asmita V Patel and Assitant Public Prosecutor JK Shah.