Summary of this article
AIIMS argued that termination at 30 weeks could cause severe and lifelong physical and psychological harm to the minor mother.
SC stressed informed consent while highlighting the emotional trauma faced by the rape survivor.
The bench also noted the possibility of adoption, framing the case as a sensitive balance between the rights and welfare of the child and the unborn foetus.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court of India, challenging an earlier ruling that had permitted a 15-year-old rape survivor to terminate her pregnancy at around 30 weeks.
According to AIIMS, proceeding with a termination at such an advanced stage may not be medically advisable. The institute argued that it could pose serious and potentially lifelong physical and psychological risks for the minor, including severe complications and future reproductive health issues.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS, told the court: With profound pain we have to mention this curative. This curative is from AIIMS. Termination of pregnancy is not possible. It will be a live baby with severe deformities. Minor mother will have life long health issues and cannot reproduce.”
She also claimed that she was “not composed” while making the submission.
AIIMS further suggested that the child could be considered for adoption, noting that at 30 weeks, the foetus was already viable.
The Supreme Court, however, stressed the need to balance competing considerations with utmost care. Chief Justice Surya Kant described the matter in stark terms, observing, “This is the case of child rape. Victim will have a lifelong trauma. This is a foetus vs child fight.”
He further questioned whether potential future hardships could outweigh the immediate physical and emotional suffering of the minor.
ASG Bhati responded that the matter was not, in her view, a “foetus vs child fight”, but rather one concerning the “best interest of the child”, reiterating concerns over the minor mother’s long-term health consequences.
In a further exchange, the Chief Justice remarked on the broader implications of forcing continuation of the pregnancy, asking whether possible future marital difficulties or emotional distress could be considered greater than the present suffering.
He also recalled earlier judicial history in similar matters, stating that an initial Supreme Court ruling on such issues had later been stayed and subsequently reversed, underscoring the evolving legal position on late-term termination cases.
The court additionally emphasised that there is no shortage of children in need of adoption in the country, pointing to abandoned and deserted children, and cautioning against framing the issue solely as one of foetal viability.
Ultimately, the bench reiterated the importance of informed consent and individual autonomy, while also directing that the girl’s parents be properly counselled regarding the medical, psychological and ethical implications involved in the decision.
