Courting trauma

Rape victims in India suffer twice over. Once the crime itself; and twice when a procedure-bound criminal justice system forces them to re-live their nightmare,in full public gaze. Thankfully,a slew of amendments to the Indian anti-rape laws since the 80s have sought to sensitise the judicial system to the vulnerability of rape victims in theory at least. But the travails of a 13-year-old rape victim in Gujarat expose the gap between theory and practice.

Upon taking her to a local clinic for an abortion,her parents,both labourers in Surendranagar district,were told that they needed to get permission from a court. A sessions court denied the victim permission to abort her unborn child since there was no evidence that her health was in danger. For a 13-year-old rape victim and her family to have to go through this is in itself shocking. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act gives a qualified medical practitioner many reasons to conduct an abortion. Explanation 1 of Section 3(2) of the law explicitly states that for pregnancies alleged… to have been caused by rape… the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. In other words,as long as rape is alleged,the health hazard to the pregnant woman must be presumed,and abortion permitted.

The trauma of a child should be enough cause for compassion.

Instead,the trauma of the girl and her family has been stretched in a manner that raises questions. The girls family has had to traverse Indias legal system,first to the sessions court and now to the high court. Apart from apprehending the criminals,it is the duty of the state to rehabilitate the victim; at the very least,not place any obstacles in her way. It is hoped that the Gujarat high court provides much needed relief.