The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a curative petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) seeking reconsideration of its April 24 order allowing the termination of a pregnancy lasting more than 28 weeks in a 15-year-old Delhi girl, making it clear that neither the Center nor medical institutions can assume the role of decision makers in such cases.
Emphasizing that the choice to have children ultimately lies with the individual and not the state, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi said this should not become a “battle between the state and its citizens”, warning against framing the issue as a contest between “an unborn child and a child”.
“What are your parents patriae [in the best interest of people] Approaching? I went to court. “Your approach is that we will decide for the citizens rather than the citizens choosing based on their informed decisions… Let us not choose for the people who are able to choose,” the bench told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhatti, appearing for AIIMS.
The court’s intervention came a day after a bench of Justices B V Nagrathna and Ujjal Bhuiyan dismissed the review petition filed by AIIMS, expressing disapproval at the institute’s attempt to challenge the court’s directions, rather than implementing them.
After the court refused to entertain the curative petition, Bhatti informed the bench that AIIMS would go ahead with the termination of the contract within the day. She also pointed out that the mother of the minor should not file the contempt petition pending before the court headed by Justice Nagaratna.
The IJC responded that the court did not expect further proceedings in the contempt of court case, reiterating that the final decision rests with the minor and her family and that they can return if they change their decision to terminate the contract.
During a charged courtroom hearing Thursday, Bhatti said the hospital approached the court with “deep pain,” citing medical concerns that termination at this stage could result in either an early live birth or risks to the minor’s long-term health.
The court repeatedly highlighted the minor’s independence and the trauma of being forced into motherhood. “Nothing under the sun or on earth can force her to carry a fetus to term when she does not want it and when she herself is a minor,” the International Commission of Justice said, describing the situation as a “fetus versus child” conflict in which the law must give priority to the dignity and future of the living child.
The court stressed that the 15-year-old girl will have to bear the psychological and social consequences of the pregnancy if it continues. “She will have dreams and aspirations, she will have to go to school… and you want to turn her into a mother? The innocent abuse cannot become a permanent scar for her,” the judge noted, questioning the impact it would have on her life in the long term.
She also expressed doubts about the suggestion that the baby, expected to be born after four weeks, could be given up for adoption, citing the reality of India’s adoption system and the presence of abandoned children. “There are children who have been abandoned on the streets, who are being trafficked and exploited by the mafia… Let us take care of these children instead of filing this case against a girl child,” she said.
Judge Bagchi stressed the constitutional principle at stake, noting that the role of the state is to enable informed decision-making, not to impose outcomes. “Your approach is to decide on behalf of citizens rather than citizens choosing based on informed decisions,” he told the law officer. “Doctors cannot decide on behalf of patients… We respect individual choices, and so should the state.”
The bench made it clear that the curative petition itself was misplaced. “You are subject to remedial jurisdiction – what are your legal grounds?” asked the CJI, rejecting the argument that medical futility alone constitutes an error warranting reconsideration of the April 24 order.
When the Center requested permission to present additional materials, including a video clip, before the court, the court refused. Instead it suggested that AIIMS should advise the minor and her parents with updated medical information and allow them to make an informed call. “If they are willing, you will have to proceed,” the court said, adding that the hospital’s obligation is to facilitate the exercise of choice, not obstruct it.
At one point, Justice Bagchi warned against institutional overreach: “The spirit of specialized knowledge of medical personnel cannot become the master of the will of the people.”
Two senior doctors from AIIMS, including specialists in neonatology and obstetrics, were also present in the court and assisted the bench with the medical implications of continuing the pregnancy to term.
The proceedings were the culmination of a week of legal wrangling that began with an April 24 Supreme Court ruling that allowed abortions even though the pregnancy exceeded the legal limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971.
The court then held that forcing a minor to continue an unwanted pregnancy would violate her right to dignity, independence and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The pregnancy, as recorded in previous proceedings, arose from a relationship between the minor girl and another minor, although in law it was treated as a case of rape, given her age.
On April 27, the court had warned the Center and AIIMS of contempt if the order was not implemented, stressing that the directions were binding and required immediate compliance. This was followed by AIIMS filing a review petition, which was dismissed on April 29 with the court observing that the institute appeared unwilling to comply with its order.
The curative petition filed Thursday was the last legal attempt to reconsider the ruling — an attempt that the court firmly shut down.
Even as it declined to reopen the case, the court cited broader concerns about the current legal framework governing abortions. The ICJ suggested that the law should evolve in line with changing realities, even discussing the idea that statutory timelines under the MTP Act might require a review of unwanted pregnancies, especially those resulting from rape.
“If justice requires it, the law must be harsh,” the bench observed, adding that procedural and evidentiary requirements in such cases must not prolong the victim’s trauma.
The court stressed that a criminal trial should not become an additional burden on the minor, calling for faster procedures to reduce further suffering.
