High Court of Jharkhand Denies Termination of 28-Week Pregnancy of Blind Rape Survivor, Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation and Rehabilitation Support
W.P. (Cr.) No. 421 of 2022
By Navya Tiwari
In a deeply sensitive case involving a 100% visually impaired rape survivor, the High Court of Jharkhand refused permission for termination of a 28-week pregnancy after a medical board warned that the procedure posed serious risk to the survivor’s life, while simultaneously directing the State to provide ₹10 lakh compensation, rehabilitation, medical care, and long-term support.
The writ petition was filed anonymously as “A” to protect the identity of the survivor, who had allegedly been subjected to repeated sexual assault, including gang rape by close family members. The Court was informed that an FIR had earlier been registered at Nagri Police Station under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against her brother and uncle.
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the survivor was completely blind, lived in extreme vulnerability, and lacked institutional support. The petition sought immediate shelter, constitution of a medical board to examine the feasibility of terminating the pregnancy, and appointment of female medical and social support personnel for her care.
Pursuant to earlier directions of the Court, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences constituted a multidisciplinary medical board comprising specialists in gynecology, neonatology, psychiatry, medicine, anesthesia, and radiology. The board concluded that the pregnancy had advanced to approximately 26–28 weeks and that termination at that stage would involve significant medical risk. It further noted that no congenital abnormality had been detected in the fetus and that termination beyond 24 weeks was impermissible under the amended Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act except in narrowly defined circumstances.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi observed that while the Court was acutely conscious of the physical, psychological, and emotional trauma suffered by the survivor, it could not ignore the statutory limitations under the MTP Act or the medical opinion that termination could endanger her life.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents including Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration and Z v. State of Bihar, the Court emphasized that reproductive rights include both the right to terminate and the right to carry a pregnancy to full term, but termination is legally permissible only within the framework laid down by statute.
While declining permission for abortion, the Court issued an extensive set of welfare directions. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was directed to ensure proper nutrition, medicines, medical supervision, and safe delivery arrangements for the survivor. The Court further ordered that she be placed in a suitable rehabilitation centre operated either by the State Government or under Union Government schemes.
Recognizing the gravity of the survivor’s condition and vulnerability, the Court directed the State Legal Services Authority to ensure payment of ₹10 lakh compensation under the victim compensation framework. The amount was ordered to be deposited in a nationalised bank account opened in the survivor’s name.
The Court also directed authorities to consider disability pension benefits for the survivor and recommended establishment of a dedicated rehabilitation centre in Ranchi for victims facing similar circumstances, noting the absence of such facilities in the state capital.
Describing rape as “a crime not only against a woman but against humanity,” the Court concluded that the welfare of both the survivor and the unborn child had to remain the paramount consideration while balancing statutory limitations and medical realities.
