Supreme Court Urges Centre To Remove Abortion Limits For Rape Survivors

Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a curative petition filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), which sought reconsideration of its 24 April order allowing the termination of a pregnancy exceeding 28 weeks in the case of a 15-year-old girl from Delhi.

The Court made it clear that neither the Centre nor medical institutions could assume the role of decision-makers in such matters.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the matter should not turn into a “conflict between the State and its citizens”, cautioning against portraying it as a contest between “an unborn child and a child”.

The Bench emphasised that the law must evolve with time and prioritise the dignity of survivors. “Please amend the law so that, in cases of pregnancy due to rape, there is no time limitation. The law must remain organic and in step with changing times,” observed the Chief Justice.

Earlier this month, the Court had allowed termination of the seven-month pregnancy, noting that the minor could not be compelled to carry it against her will.

A medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), however, concluded that termination at 30 weeks could result in a live birth with severe abnormalities and might pose significant long-term health risks to the minor, including potential loss of future fertility.

AIIMS subsequently filed a curative petition, suggesting that continuing the pregnancy for a further four weeks could improve the child’s chances of survival, after which the infant could be placed for adoption.

Appearing for AIIMS, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued that termination at this stage was not medically advisable and that continuation would better serve the child’s interests. She also proposed counselling for the minor and her parents on the medical implications before any decision.

The Bench expressed reservations, stressing that the decision must rest with the minor and her parents, not the State or medical authorities. “An unwanted pregnancy cannot be imposed. She is a child who should be in school, yet we are asking her to become a mother. This is a case of child rape. The victim will carry lifelong trauma. It is a question of the foetus versus the child, and the child cannot be forced to continue the pregnancy,” said the Chief Justice.

The Court also questioned the State’s emphasis on improving foetal outcomes through brief continuation of the pregnancy, noting that such considerations should not outweigh the minor’s circumstances. “There is too much focus on the foetus and not enough on the mother, who has endured such suffering,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Justice Bagchi added that the parents must be given full information and allowed to decide. “Respect the citizen. Present the data to the parents. If they choose to continue, so be it. If they believe the minor’s mental health is at risk, they must be free to decide,” he said.

He further cautioned against turning the matter into an adversarial dispute, stating that the State should not override individual choice. “This should not become a contest between the State and its citizens. Institutions may advise, but the decision lies with the parents,” he observed.

The petitioner had then argued the pregnancy had already severely affected her life, including her education, which could be disrupted for months. "Every single day is very traumatic..."

In the earlier ruling, Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said compelling her to deliver the child violated fundamental rights and that a woman's reproductive autonomy must be of the "highest importance".

The court noted her psychological distress and the fact she twice attempted to die by suicide, and said, "Forcing her to continue is a direct affront to her right to live with dignity."