-
by sayum
24 August 2026 3:22 PM
In response to a petition by the girl's father, the Madras High Court recently allowed the termination of a 13-year-old rape victim's 28 week + three-day Pregnancy.
Even though the pregnancy had exceeded the legal limit of 20 weeks, Justice Abdul Quddhose noted that she was a small girl who lacked the mental and physical strength to withstand the pregnancy. In addition, the court noted that the girl's father, the Petitioner in this case, was an agricultural labourer, and that if the pregnancy was permitted to continue, not only the victim girl, but the entire family would suffer.
This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the petitioner is an agricultural labourer who lives hand-to-mouth. Clearly, he falls below the federal poverty line. If the minor victim girl is permitted to give birth, not only will she and her parents suffer, but so will the perpetrator.
The court also cited precedents in which the Supreme Court had permitted termination of pregnancies even after 20 weeks of gestation. In A v. Union of India (2018, 4 SCC 75), the Supreme Court authorised an abortion when the gestational age was between 25 and 26 weeks. In Murugan Nayakkar v. Union of India, 2017 SCC Online SC 1092, the court permitted the termination of a 13-year-pregnancy. old's Similarly, in Meera Santosh Pal vs. Union of India, 2017 3 SCC 462, permission for a medical termination of pregnancy was granted after 24 weeks of pregnancy, based on medical reports indicating the risk associated with continuing the pregnancy. In reliance on these precedents, the court made the following observation: It is evident from the preceding decisions that this Court has the authority to order the termination of the victim girl's pregnancy if her physical or mental health is in grave jeopardy.
In the present case, the court heard from the Directorate of Family Welfare's Joint Director (MTP) and Deputy Director (Inspection), who argued that the girl's pregnancy could be terminated. They also argued that the rape victim is mentally fragile and unable to give birth at such a young age. The Chief of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Government Thiruvannamalai Medical College Hospital confirmed the same.
The court also noted that it had greater authority under Article 226 of the Constitution than under Section 3(2) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, which permits a registered medical practitioner to terminate a pregnancy only if it does not exceed twenty weeks.
Invoking this authority, the court ordered the state to appoint a team of specialised physicians who will terminate the pregnancy. The court also ordered the respondent-state to preserve the foetus after termination in order to conduct a medical examination for the purposes of a pending criminal case under the IPC and the POCSO Act. The Child Welfare Committee was also instructed to provide all possible support to the victim and her parents during their hospital stay.
D.D:15-07-2022
K Vijayakumar Versus. State of Tamil Nadu
