Breaking: Innocent's Victimization Should Not Become Scar For Life: Apex Court Refuses To Hear Curative Plea By AIIMS Against Termination Of Pregnancy Of 15 YO

The Supreme Court refused to hear a plea from AIIMS regarding the medical termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor, asserting that the state cannot substitute its own choice for that of its citizens.

While hearing a curative petition mentioned by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, the Court rebuked the institute’s "parens patriae" approach, clarifying that medical expertise should serve as a guide for informed consent rather than a mandate to compel a minor into unwanted motherhood.

Emphasizing that the innocent victimisation of a child must not become a permanent life scar, the Court exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to override statutory time limits, directing that the minor and her parents be provided with comprehensive psychiatric and medical counselling to make the final decision regarding the termination.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, "We will not let the institution choose for the parents."

The Court also remarked, "We do not think it is. We exercise our powers under Article 142; that cut-off is for statutory authorities, not for us. We respect individual choice. Please, Madam, allow the parents an informed choice. Sometimes choices are uninformed. There, the experts and the State are in a better position to share information and advice, but thereafter, it is up to the citizen to decide. The law has to see the whole life before a person. That is why I say the law, if required to be ruthless, must become so...Please amend your law so that in cases of unwanted pregnancy on account of rape of a minor girl, the time limitation will not be there. Let not medical personnel, because of their specialized knowledge, become the masters of the will of the people. The people will decide. As judges, we cannot decide for the litigant; similarly, doctors cannot decide for their patients...See, innocent's victimization should not become scar for her life."

ASG Aishwarya Bhati appeared for AIIMS.

A Curative Petition was mentioned by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati before the bench of the Chief Justice of India, seeking a final judicial review of the order allowing the termination of the 30-week pregnancy on the grounds of significant medical risks.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS, expressed deep concern while mentioning the curative petition, submitting that the termination of the 30-week pregnancy was medically unfeasible. She contended that at this advanced stage, the procedure would result in a "live baby with severe deformities" and cause lifelong health complications for the minor, potentially rendering her unable to reproduce. The ASG further argued that a premature delivery at this stage would necessitate "foeticide" via a fetal heart injection, suggesting instead that the pregnancy be carried for four more weeks to give the child a "fighting chance" and allow for adoption.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) strongly rebuked the attempt to compel a 15-year-old rape survivor to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The CJI emphasized that a minor child, who should be focused on her education, should not be forced into motherhood against her will, describing such compulsion as a violation of her dignity. Addressing the "foetus vs. child" conflict, the Court remarked that the law must be "ruthless" when justice demands it, noting that the trauma and social humiliation the victim would face throughout her life outweighed the medical predictions offered by the institute.

Chief Justice said, "Now it is a viable life. What happened to the innocent child? Today, now that she knows everything, do you think—just imagine what is going on in her mind. The degree of agony. Somebody can imagine. I had dealt with this; the first judgment in this country on this point was authored by me. Unfortunately, this Court stayed that judgment; otherwise, the law would have been well-settled at that time. Following that controversy, the Supreme Court ultimately reversed its own view. Justice Augustine Masih was my bench partner when I did it."

He added, "Regarding adoption, you see, in this country, children are available for adoption. It is not that we do not have children for adoption. Read yesterday’s story about what happened in Madhya Pradesh. In this country, we sometimes have a lot of sympathy—as we should—but there are children deserted, abandoned, and sold by parents. We should look after those children roaming the streets; there are mafias operating in child trafficking. We have millions and millions of children in this country to look after, instead of spending so much energy on a fetus which may survive or may not survive. We are not sure about it. After all, look at this: this is an unwanted pregnancy of a 15-year-old child."

Justice Bagchi criticized the State’s "parents patriae" approach, asserting that AIIMS should remain a provider of medical services rather than an arbiter of a citizen’s will. The Court observed that the "specialized knowledge of medical professionals cannot become the master of the will of people."

ASG submitted, "Milords, if they are willing, we are requesting one counselling session with the family and the mother. If we can explain these things—because this feticide will be harmful to the mother herself—she is at AIIMS only. If Your Lordships will permit us that one exercise, we will show all permutations to the mother and the parents."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "What is your parens patriae approach? Your approach is more "I will choose for my citizens" rather than allowing an informed choice from the citizens. Give respect to the citizens, Madam. Go back. Share your data. Let them choose. If they choose to preserve the life at this advanced stage, so be it. If they choose that the ignominy and the mental health jeopardy outweigh it, so be it. That is the parens patriae approach."

Justice Bagchi asked the authorities to provide the parents and the minor with all necessary data and psychiatric counselling, maintaining that the final decision must rest with them.

The Court said, "Do that and do not press your curative application. If a curative is to come, it should come from the parents, who have understood and want to correct the error. Not from you. Let us not make it a fight between the State and its citizens. Bring in a psychiatrist and a counsellor. Let us not choose for people who are capable of choosing for themselves."

The Court warned the State against hardening its stance and clarified that if the parents chose to proceed with the termination after being fully informed, the Court’s order must be implemented without further interference from the institute.

The Court suggested that the Government should amend the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act to remove time limitations in cases where pregnancy results from sexual assault. Furthermore, the CJI advocated for legislative changes to ensure that trials in such sensitive matters are completed within a week, thereby sparing victims the prolonged trauma of pending legal proceedings and the physical burden of an unwanted pregnancy.

Dr. Ramesh Agarwal, Professor of Pediatrics at AIIMS, deposed before the Bench regarding the clinical status of the fetus. He submitted with certainty that at 30 weeks, the baby would survive the delivery but would inevitably be born with severe medical complications. The medical expert informed the Court that the infant would require immediate and intensive NICU support, followed by complex cardiac surgery.

Drawing a parallel to a previous case handled by the institute, where a child born under similar circumstances had recently celebrated a first birthday, Dr. Agarwal highlighted that such children often face a lifetime of disability and are frequently relegated to care homes without parental support.

The CJI remarked that there appeared to be "too much focus on the child" at the expense of acknowledging the profound suffering of the minor mother. The Bench reiterated that the court must prioritize the lived experience and the immense trauma of the 15-year-old survivor, who had already endured the ordeal of sexual assault and was now being subjected to the additional burden of a forced pregnancy.

Previously, the Court vide its order dated April 24, 2026, permitted a 15-year-old minor to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy, which had exceeded the 28-week gestation period. A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that compelling the minor to carry an unwanted pregnancy to full term constituted a gross violation of her reproductive autonomy and her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the minor's mental health and bodily integrity outweighed the statutory limitations prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.

The State raised significant concerns regarding the medical risks associated with an advanced-stage termination. The State submitted that as per medical reports from AIIMS, the procedure posed a threat to the life of both the mother and the fetus. It was further proposed that the state was willing to facilitate the birth and subsequent adoption of the child through the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). However, the Bench rejected these contentions, noting that forcing a minor—who had reportedly attempted self-harm—to continue the pregnancy would result in irreversible psychological and social trauma.

Subsequent to the passing of the order, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) moved a review petition before the same bench. The petitioner-institute sought a reconsideration of the order, citing clinical complexities. On April 29, 2026, the Bench dismissed the said review plea with stern remarks, observing that the institute appeared to be assailing a judicial mandate rather than complying with it. The Court reiterated that no statutory remedy or procedural technicality could supersede the constitutional remedies available to a citizen, especially a minor in distress.

Following the dismissal of the review petition, the matter took a further turn with the filing of a curative petition.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.