'Unwanted Pregnancies On Rise', Says Supreme Court Dropping Contempt Proceedings Against AIIMS

The Supreme Court today dropped contempt proceedings against the Centre and All India Institute of Medical Sciences after being informed that its order permitting termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a minor girl had been complied with.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a contempt petition filed by the mother of the minor alleging non-compliance with the Court's earlier directions.

“Learned Additional Solicitor General has brought to our notice 2 reports dated 2nd May 2026 and 4th May 2026. She has reported that the direction issued by this court has been implemented in as much as the termination of pregnancy has been carried out. We do not find any reason to consider this contempt petition any further. Hence the contempt proceedings against the respondents are dropped”, the Court ordered.

After dictating the order, Justice Nagarathna remarked that such cases present difficult situations where decisions have to be taken without emotion, and expressed hope that such situations do not arise in future.

“It's not easy for us here. There is nobody who is winning, nobody is losing this. But then we have to take a decision without emotion. I hope it doesn't come to this again in the sense that we don't want any more unwanted pregnancies coming for termination”, she said.

The contempt proceedings arose from the Court's April 24, 2026 order permitting termination of the minor's pregnancy beyond the statutory limit under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The Court had held that compelling the minor to continue the pregnancy when she was not willing to do so would violate her fundamental right under Article 21.

Last week, the Court had directed the Director of AIIMS, New Delhi and Principal Secretary and Secretary of the Union Health Ministry to appear, warning that if its order was not complied with by May 04, 2026, it would proceed to frame contempt charges against them.

Today, at the outset, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the Court that the procedure had been carried out, and the minor girl is fit for discharge. She further informed the Court that the girl gave birth to a baby boy who was in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Justice Nagarathna said that whatever medical assistance required must be provided.

During the hearing, the bench and the ASG discussed issues under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Justice Nagarathna observed that if AIIMS does not take the responsibility of carrying out MTP in such case, women would turn to unqualified practitioners and their lives would be at risk. Justice Bhuyan highlighted that women resorting to unqualified practitioners was the very mischief that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act sought to prevent.

Justice Nagarathna reiterated CJI Surya Kant's suggestion to amend the MTP Act so that in case of pregnancy of a minor rape victim, the time limit will not apply.

Justice Nagarathna observed that unwanted pregnancies, including those arising out of consensual relationships, were increasing and said that in many cases the shock of the minor and the delay in informing family members leads to late decisions, after which private clinics refuse assistance and the patient ultimately approaches AIIMS. She observed that in such situations the minor has to be taken care of.

“The tendency nowadays in society of these unwanted pregnancies is on the rise. You see what happens – They don't inform, here the mother (of the minor girl) detected. By the time a decision is taken in the family it would be 7 months. You see it is very difficult. The shock of the girl who is not married and is minor having become pregnant and the decision of the family what to do…This is a mischief. Either a lacuna in the law and tendency in the society. Somebody has to answer it”, she said.

Bhati submitted that the statutory limit had already been extended by the 2021 amendment to 24 weeks, from earlier limits of 10 and 12 weeks. She also contended that in such cases involving advanced pregnancy, the Court would also have to consider the rights of the baby.

“Someday your lordships will also have to consider what happens to such babies. This baby has an 80% chance of survival, but with disabilities, with lifelong disabilities?”, she highlighted.

She further submitted that professional and medical bodies act on medical evidence, and added that there is a need for sex education within families and society.

The Court said that no further consideration of the contempt petition was required.

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