‘State can’t choose for citizens’: SC refuses to reopen 15-year-old’s abortion case

THe sublime margaret court on th declined to flirt with a healing(p) plea filed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) seeking reconsideration of its April 24 order permitting termination of an over 28-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old Delhi girl, making it clear that neither the Centre nor medical institutions could assume the role of decision-makers in such cases.Underlining that reproductive choice ultimately rests with the individual and not the state, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said that this should not become a “fight between the state and its citizens,” cautioning against framing the issue as a contest between “an unborn child and a child”.“What is your parens patriae [in the best interest of people] approach? You have approached the court. Your approach is that ‘we will decide for the citizens instead of citizens choosing based on their informed decisions’... Let us not choose for people who are capable of choosing,” the bench told additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS.The court’s intervention came a day after a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a review petition filed by AIIMS, expressing disapproval at the institute’s attempt to challenge, rather than implement, the court’s directions.Following the court’s refusal to entertain the curative plea, Bhati informed the bench that AIIMS would proceed with the termination during the day. She also indicated that the minor’s mother may not press the pending contempt petition before the bench led by Justice Nagarathna.The CJI responded that the court did not anticipate further proceedings in contempt, reiterating that the ultimate decision rests with the minor and her family and that they could return if they changed their decision to terminate.During a charged courtroom exchange on Thursday, Bhati said the hospital had approached the court “with profound pain”, citing medical concerns that termination at this stage could result in either a premature live birth or risks to the minor’s long-term health.The bench repeatedly foregrounded the minor’s autonomy and the trauma of being forced into motherhood. “Nothing under the sun or on the earth can compel her to carry the fetus to full term when she does not want it and when she is herself a minor,” the CJI said, describing the situation as a “fetus versus child” conflict in which the law must prioritise the living child’s dignity and future.The court emphasised that the 15-year-old would be forced to bear the psychological and social consequences of the pregnancy if it were continued. “She would have dreams, aspirations, should go to school… and you want to convert her into a mother? Innocent victimisation cannot become a permanent scar for her,” remarked the bench, questioning the long-term impact on her life.It also expressed scepticism over the suggestion that the child, expected to be born after four weeks, could be given up for adoption, noting the realities of India’s adoption ecosystem and the existence of abandoned children. “There are children abandoned on streets, being trafficked and exploited by mafias…let us take care of those children instead of pressing this case against a girl child,” it said.Justice Bagchi reinforced the constitutional principle at stake, observing that the state’s role was to enable informed decision-making, not to impose outcomes. “Your approach is that you will decide for citizens instead of citizens choosing based on informed decisions,” he told the law officer. “Doctors cannot decide for patients… we respect individual choices and so should the state.”The bench made it clear that the curative petition itself was misplaced. “You are in curative jurisdiction -- what are your grounds in law?” asked the CJI, rejecting the argument that medical infeasibility alone constituted an error warranting reconsideration of the April 24 order.When the Centre sought permission to place additional material, including a video, before the court, the bench declined. It instead suggested that AIIMS counsel the minor and her parents with updated medical information and allow them to take an informed call. “If they are willing, you will have to go ahead,” said the court, adding that the hospital’s obligation was to facilitate, not obstruct, the exercise of choice.At one point, Justice Bagchi warned against institutional overreach: “The ethos of specialised knowledge of medical professionals cannot become the master of the will of people.”Two senior doctors from AIIMS, including specialists from neonatology and obstetrics, were also present in court and assisted the bench on the medical implications of carrying the pregnancy to term.The proceedings marked the culmination of a week-long legal back-and-forth that began with the Supreme Court’s April 24 ruling allowing termination despite the pregnancy having crossed the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.The court had then held that forcing a minor to continue an unwanted pregnancy would violate her right to dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under the Constitution’s Article 21. The pregnancy, as recorded in earlier proceedings, arose out of a relationship between the minor girl and another minor, though it has been treated in law as a case of rape, given her age.On April 27, the court had warned the Centre and AIIMS of contempt if the order was not implemented, underscoring 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 noting that the institute appeared unwilling to obey its order.Thursday’s curative plea was the final legal attempt to revisit the ruling -- one that the court firmly shut down.Even as it declined to reopen the case, the bench flagged broader concerns with the existing legal framework governing abortions. The CJI suggested that the law must evolve in step with changing realities, even mooting the idea that statutory timelines under the MTP Act may require reconsideration in cases of unwanted pregnancies, particularly those arising from rape.“If justice so demands, law should be ruthless,” observed the bench, adding that procedural and evidentiary requirements in such cases must not prolong the victim’s trauma.The court underlined that the criminal trial should not become an added burden on the minor, calling for faster processes that minimise further distress.