Court directs officials to appear by video conferencing on May 4, warns charges may be framed if order permitting termination of 30-week pregnancy is not implemented
Notice Issued In Contempt Plea
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a contempt petition alleging non-compliance by AIIMS, New Delhi, with its recent order permitting medical termination of the 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old girl.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan directed the alleged contemnors to remain present before the Court through video conferencing on Monday, May 4.
The alleged contemnors are the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare; Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare; and Director, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Court Warns Of Framing Charges
The Court indicated that if its order is not complied with by May 4, it would proceed further in the contempt proceedings and frame charges after hearing the parties.
Justice Nagarathna observed that the Court was concerned only with ensuring compliance with its order.
“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.
Contempt Plea Filed By Minor’s Mother
The contempt petition was filed by the mother of the minor girl.
It arose from the Supreme Court’s April 24 order, by which the Court had permitted termination of the minor’s pregnancy, which had crossed seven months.
The Court had held that a woman cannot be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy merely because the child may be given up for adoption after birth.
Choice Of Pregnant Woman Held Paramount
In its earlier order, the Supreme Court had stated that the choice of the pregnant woman must remain paramount.
The Court observed that compelling a woman, particularly a minor, to carry a pregnancy to full term against her will would cause grave mental, emotional and physical trauma.
It further held that such compulsion would violate her fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court also noted that forcing continuation of an unwanted pregnancy would subordinate the welfare of the pregnant woman to that of the child yet to be born.
Plea Was Beyond Statutory Limit Under MTP Act
The Court was hearing a plea filed by the mother of the minor girl seeking permission for termination beyond the statutory limit prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
The Union of India had opposed the plea.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that termination at such an advanced stage could endanger the life of both the mother and the child.
He suggested adoption through the Central Adoption Resource Authority and also offered financial assistance.
Court Rejected Adoption And Financial Support Argument
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati had requested counselling of the minor girl to ascertain her wishes.
However, the Court rejected the approach that the minor should be made to continue the pregnancy on the basis of financial support or a future adoption arrangement.
The Court held that it could not direct a woman to depend on such alternatives if she was unwilling to continue the pregnancy.
Pregnancy Arose From Consensual Relationship Between Minors
The Supreme Court noted that the pregnancy had resulted from a consensual relationship between two minors.
It also recorded that the girl had clearly expressed that she did not wish to continue the pregnancy.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the termination to be carried out at AIIMS, New Delhi, subject to medical safeguards.
Review Petition By AIIMS Dismissed
After the April 24 order, AIIMS filed a review petition challenging the direction.
The same Bench dismissed the review petition.
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.
Also Read: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Reward for Tip-Off on Illegal Luxury Car Imports
Curative Petition Not Entertained
AIIMS thereafter filed a curative petition.
The matter was mentioned in the morning before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
The Court refused to entertain the curative petition and reiterated that AIIMS could not impose its decision on the woman.
It said that the woman must be permitted to take an informed decision.
AIIMS Allowed To Counsel, Not Dictate Decision
ASG Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the foetus was 30 weeks old and viable, and that termination could cause irreversible harm to the minor.
She suggested that the Court wait for the birth and allow the child to be given up for adoption.
The Court, however, said unwanted pregnancies cannot be forced upon a woman.
Justice Bagchi observed that the decision must be taken by the girl and her family after being informed of all medical aspects, and not by AIIMS.
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.
Case Details
Case Title: S [Mother of N] v. Punya Salila Srivastava
Case No.: Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 233/2026 in C.A. No. 6667/2026
Diary No.: 26229/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Also Read: Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Reward for Tip-Off on Illegal Luxury Car Imports
