Kerala High Court: In a writ petition filed by a father to terminate the pregnancy of his 15-year-old daughter, who was impregnated by his minor son, P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J. left it to the Child Welfare Committee (‘CWC’) to take necessary steps as per law regarding protection of newborn child, since the custody of minor was already handed over to her uncle. It further suggested constitution of a committee by the government to study the issue and think about including ‘safe sex education’ in the curriculum for schools and colleges.
The Court in the instant case had considered the question of whether termination of pregnancy was necessary, or the pregnancy could be carried out to its full term. Through order dated 19-05-2023 through XXX v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 3272, the Kerala High Court allowed termination of pregnancy of minor impregnated by her own brother. On 2-06-2023, the Court indicated the father to submit an application in accordance with Section 40 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 (‘JJ Act’) for restoration of child. The Court had also directed the CWC to decide on custody of newborn child of the minor girl in accordance with Section 35 of JJ Act and the CWC through order dated 3-06-2023 handed over the minor girl’s custody to her uncle.
While passing the instant judgment, the Court expressed concern that “Nobody can blame the parents, but we as a society are responsible for this. Sibling incest may take place in the context of a family system that does not provide a safe environment for its members. But it may also happen because of the lack of knowledge about safe sex. I am of the considered opinion that the Government should seriously think about the necessity of proper ‘sex education’ in schools and colleges.”
The Court batted for a good family atmosphere which could be attained if the citizens join together without pelting stones to such unfortunate people.
The Court also left it to the CWC to take necessary consequential steps and acknowledged the protection of newborn child as the duty of the State.
The Court again expressed concern over the embarrassment faced by the parents and victim girl in the instant casualty and said that “this happened because of the lack of knowledge about the safe sex. Minor children are in front of ‘internet’ and ‘google search’. There is no guidance to the children.”
The Court suggested constitution of a committee by the government to study the issue and think about including ‘safe sex education’ in the curriculum for schools and colleges.
[X v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 4427, decided on 23-06-2023]
Judgment by: Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate K. Rakesh;
For Respondents: Advocate Sarin, Advocate M.R. Sasith, Advocate P. Santhoshkumar, Advocate Sneha Joy, Advocate Parvathi Krishna.
Buy Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 HERE
