The Supreme Court on Monday warned the federal government of contempt action if it fails to comply with its April 24 order allowing a 15-year-old Delhi girl to terminate her pregnancy lasting more than 28 weeks at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), making it clear that the measure must be implemented without delay.
A bench of Justices B V Nagaratna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed an urgent plea by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti to list the review petition in open court, even as the law officer cited “serious” medical concerns.
“You must follow our orders or face contempt,” the council told Hattie, stressing that the executive directives had already been issued on April 24 and were binding.
The court also expressed its surprise at the government’s haste in requesting reconsideration before issuing the detailed ruling. “We issued the executive part of the order on the same day. The detailed order has not been issued yet, and you submitted the review without even waiting for the full order?” The council commented, refusing to accept the immediate listing application.
This warning comes two days after the court issued a strongly worded ruling highlighting reproductive autonomy and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By allowing the minor to terminate even though the pregnancy exceeded the legal threshold under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the court held that no woman, “particularly a minor child,” could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will.
The court stressed that constitutional courts must give priority to the well-being and wishes of the pregnant woman over procedural restrictions as the continuation of the pregnancy results in severe psychological and physical trauma. She warned that forcing a woman to continue with such a pregnancy would make her “subservient” to the unborn child and amount to a direct insult to her dignity.
On Monday, the court confirmed that its directives would be implemented immediately, leaving little room for administrative or legal hesitation. The minor, who has been admitted to AIIMS since April 10, will undergo this procedure with all necessary medical safeguards.
In previous hearings, the Federation had raised concerns about the risks involved in terminating a pregnancy late and the possibility of caring for both the minor and the child if the pregnancy continues to term. However, the court rejected this approach, warning that denying relief in cases of unwanted pregnancies, especially for minors, could push women toward unsafe and illegal abortion practices.
The government’s move to file a review petition appears to have done little to change the court’s immediate position. This case is expected to continue in time, but the court’s message on Monday was unequivocal: termination must be implemented.
In its ruling on April 24, the court held that the right to make decisions about one’s body, especially in matters of reproduction, is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21. The court noted that “if a pregnant woman with an unwanted pregnancy is forced to continue that pregnancy, the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman will be violated.”
The court also stressed that the mother’s well-being and best interests must be paramount, warning against methods that make her “subordinate to the unborn child.” In cases of unwanted pregnancy, continuing with the guidance would negate her dignity, independence and long-term well-being, the court said.
The MTP Act, first passed in 1971 and then amended in 2021, allows all women to legally undergo abortion for up to 20 weeks, and grants an additional extension to women for mental anguish, rape, assault, and health complications, among others.
The ruling also clarified the role of the Constitutional Courts when legal remedies are not available, particularly in cases where the pregnancy exceeds the pregnancy limits stipulated in the Medium-Term Plan Law. The court rejected strict application of statutory timelines and said that courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 must weigh the facts from the perspective of the woman seeking to end her marriage.
The court took note of the psychological distress suffered by the minor, including alleged attempts at suicide, and noted that forcing her to continue the pregnancy would have “long-term repercussions” on her mental health, education, social standing and general development.
The court noted that the pregnancy arose as a result of a consensual relationship between minors and was unequivocally unwanted. The girl clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue and was willing to bear the medical risks associated with termination.
