Supreme Court Warns Centre, AIIMS Of Contempt Charges If Order On Minor's Pregnancy Termination Not Implemented By May 4

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance by AIIMS, New Delhi with its recent order permitting medical termination of 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old girl.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the alleged contemnors - Principal Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Secretary of Department of Health and Family Welfare, and Director of AIIMS, New Delhi to remain present in the Court through video conferencing on Monday, May 4.

The Court indicated that if the order is not complied with by then, it will proceed to frame charges. The order was passed in a contempt petition filed by the mother of the minor girl.

“If they do not comply with our order by Monday, then let them be prepared for further directions in the contempt proceedings. We are not concerned with anything but that the order of this court is complied with…If they do not comply by Monday, we will frame the charges. We will hear them before framing charges”, Justice Nagarathna said.

The contempt plea arises from the Court's April 24 order allowing termination of the minor's pregnancy, which had advanced beyond seven months. The Court had held that a woman cannot be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy merely on the ground that the child can be given up for adoption after birth. The Court said that the choice of the pregnant woman must remain paramount.

The Court had observed that directing a woman, particularly a minor, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her will would cause grave mental, emotional and physical trauma, and violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that forcing continuation of an unwanted pregnancy would negate the welfare of the pregnant woman and make it subordinate to the child yet to be born.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the mother of the minor seeking permission for termination beyond the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

The Union of India had opposed the plea, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitting that termination at such an advanced stage posed a threat to the life of both the mother and the child and suggesting adoption through the Central Adoption Resource Authority. He also offered financial assistance.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had requested for counselling of the minor girl to ascertain her wishes.

However, the Court had rejected this approach, observing that the Court cannot direct a woman to depend on financial support or adoption if she is unwilling to continue the pregnancy.

The Court noted that the pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship between two minors and that the girl had clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue. It allowed the termination to be carried out at AIIMS, New Delhi, subject to medical safeguards.

Thereafter, AIIMS challenged the order through a review petition, which was dismissed by the same bench. The Court remarked that it was “strange” that AIIMS was not inclined to obey the Supreme Court's order and was instead attempting to defeat the constitutional rights of the minor.

AIIMS then filed a curative petition, which was mentioned in the morning today before a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Court refused to entertain the curative petition and reiterated that AIIMS cannot impose its decision on the woman. It said the woman must be allowed to take an informed decision.

ASG Aishwarya Bhati argued that the foetus was 30 weeks old and viable, and that termination could cause irreversible harm to the minor. She suggested waiting for birth and giving the child up for adoption. The Court, however, said unwanted pregnancies cannot be forced on a woman.

Justice Bagchi said that it was for the girl and her family to decide after being informed of all medical aspects, and not for AIIMS to dictate the course. The Court permitted AIIMS doctors to counsel the girl and share medical reports but refused to allow the institution to return to Court to press its position.

It is in this background that the present contempt proceedings have been initiated.

Case No. – Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 233/2026 In C.A. No. 6667/2026 Diary No. 26229 / 2026

Case Title – S [Mother of N] v. Punya Salila Srivastava