‘Parents will choose, not AIIMS’: Supreme Court refuses to hear plea against terminating 15-year-old’s pregnancy

A different Supreme Court bench had, on April 24, allowed the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP), underscoring the reproductive autonomy of a woman.

Appearing for AIIMS, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati made a fervent plea that the foetus is already 30 weeks old and waiting for four more weeks will be in the interest of the minor as well as the foetus.

The bench, however, did not agree. “Unwanted pregnancies cannot be burdened on the woman,” the CJI said, adding that the hospital should keep in mind not just the fate of the unborn foetus, but also the trauma of the minor girl.

“This is a case of child rape. Victim will have a lifelong scar and trauma. This is a foetus vs child fight,” the CJI said.

Bhati said the MTP Act had laid down a cut-off period of 24 weeks because of the health risks beyond that. “Please amend your law that in case of pregnancy of a minor rape victim, the time limit will not apply,” the CJI said.

Several risks to minor and foetus: What AIIMS said

A day after a Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the MTP, AIIMS approached the court seeking a review of the April 24 order, saying that a fresh assessment of the minor had pointed to several risks to the minor and the foetus if the procedure is carried out now.

Highlighting “grave legal and ethical implications” in the matter, AIIMS said, “The medical board has unambiguously opined that at the current stage of gestation, the termination of the pregnancy of Minor ‘N’ will not be a conventional abortion but will result in a preterm delivery of a viable fetus—one that has a fair chance of survival. The court’s order proceeds on the premise of termination of pregnancy; however, the medical reality, as disclosed by the post-order assessment, is that a living, viable child will be prematurely delivered into the world.”

It added that the “medical board has specifically warned that the prematurely delivered neonate will require a prolonged stay in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) with life and organ support, and that the child faces a high risk of significant and permanent long-term disabilities including blindness, deafness, and neurodevelopmental delay. AIIMS would thus be knowingly delivering a fetus with a high chance of lifelong disability”.

AIIMS said the medical board has advised that if the pregnancy is allowed to continue for another six weeks, the outcome for the child will be “significantly better”. It also flagged risks for the minor in the long run, saying, “induction and preterm delivery will carry a higher likelihood of Caesarean section, increasing future childbearing risks for Minor ‘N’”.

The bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan, however, dismissed the review petition on Wednesday and said, “It is strange that the review petitioner-All India Institute of Medical Sciences is not inclined to obey the order of the Supreme Court and instead, is assailing the order of this Court dated 24.04.2026 in order to defeat the constitutional rights of the minor daughter of the appellant herein.”

‘Not for AIIMS to choose for citizens’

On Thursday, Bhati said AIIMS is filing a curative petition against the dismissal of the review petition. The law officer said what has to be done is foeticide itself, which is prohibited under the law.

Justice Bagchi said, “If a curative has to come, it has to come from them, not from you. Let us not make it a fight between the State and the citizens.” He added, “It is not for AIIMS to choose for the citizens. It is just to render medical service.”

With the bench making it clear that it is in no mood to relent, Bhati urged that the institute be permitted to counsel the parents and come back to the court again.

The bench said AIIMS is free to counsel but added that it should be the parents and not the institute, which can come back to it. “You cannot come back. You share the reports and data with them. Let them take an informed decision. If they want to keep the child, let them. Then they can come to us,” Justice Bagchi said.

The court also interacted with two AIIMS doctors, who cited the example of an earlier MTP to highlight the associated risk. But the court said they were focusing more on the unborn child than the living minor. “Too much focus on the child and not the mother who has gone through such pain,” said the CJI.

Later in the day, the bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan also issued notice on a plea alleging contempt of court by AIIMS and asked the principal secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, secretary of Department of Health and Family Welfare, and director of AIIMS, New Delhi, to appear before it through video conferencing on May 4.

It added, “If they do not comply with our order by Monday, then let them be prepared for further directions in the contempt proceedings.” The court said, “We are not concerned with anything but that the order of this court is complied with…If they do not comply by Monday, we will frame the charges. We will hear them before framing charges”.