Delhi High Court: In the present case, vide order dated 03-11-2023, this Court had directed the Medical Board constituted at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi, to examine the petitioner, victim child on 04-11-2023 to assess as to whether the medical termination of pregnancy would carry a risk to petitioner’s life at the stage of gestational period of her pregnancy. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., opined that the Medical Board should seek petitioner’s opinion once again and in case she and her guardian were willing for medical termination of pregnancy and the Medical Board found it a fit case for the same, medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner should be conducted. The Court directed the Medical Board to explain the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy, as well as pros and cons of continuing with the pregnancy if any, to petitioner and her guardian in Hindi which was her mother tongue so that there was no miscommunication.
The Court noted that petitioner had expressed her desire for medical termination of pregnancy, however, the report of the Medical Board revealed that petitioner was not willing to undergo medical termination of pregnancy. The Court also noted that during interaction with petitioner, she had stated that she was under the fear of losing her life in the process of medical termination of pregnancy, as the doctors had explained to her the danger to her life in case of medical termination of pregnancy. However, later, she stated that she wanted the pregnancy to be medically terminated and her guardian also stated that she was in favour of termination of pregnancy of petitioner.
The Court opined that in these circumstances, it deems it appropriate to send back petitioner for her appearance and production before the Medical Superintendent and the Medical Board at Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, Delhi and the Medical Board would again explain to petitioner the pros and cons of medical termination of pregnancy. The Court noted that the medical report sent to this Court did not mention that they had told petitioner that she would lose her life, therefore, it seemed that there was some miscommunication. The Medical Board had rather opined that medical termination of pregnancy was possible and petitioner was mentally fit to take a decision.
The Court opined that the Medical Board should seek petitioner’s opinion once again and in case she and her guardian were willing for medical termination of pregnancy and the Medical Board found it a fit case for the same, medical termination of pregnancy of petitioner should be conducted on 06-11-2023 following the directions of order dated 03-11-2023 so that precious time was not lost by again seeking an order of this Court.
The Court directed the Medical Board to explain the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy, as well as pros and cons of continuing with the pregnancy if any, to petitioner and her guardian in Hindi which was her mother tongue so that there was no miscommunication. The communication so made and the consent whether in affirmative or negative of petitioner and her guardian should also be obtained in her mother tongue, Hindi on the medical examination report.
The Court also ordered that henceforth, in cases of medical termination of pregnancy in rape cases, the pros and cons of the medical termination of pregnancy would be explained in Hindi wherever the victim and her guardian in case of a minor victim understands Hindi, or English where they understand the said language as explanation of the above in the language spoken and understood by the victim and her guardian were of utmost importance. The Court further directed that every endeavour must be made by the investigating officer and the Medical Board that the abovesaid was explained in the language spoken and understood by the victim and her guardian.
[Minor L v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7159, Order dated 04-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Anwesh Madhukar (DHCLSC); Prachi Nirwan, Devesh Khanagwal, Advocates; along with victim Minor L in person
For the Respondents: Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (Criminal); Alok Sharma, Vasu Aggarwal, Advocates
