The Supreme Court today has directed that its earlier order permitting termination of a 30-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old rape survivor be implemented, while allowing a limited window for reconsideration through informed counselling. The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that the State may facilitate a fresh consultation with psychiatrists or counsellors to fully apprise the minor and her parents of the medical consequences; however, if they do not seek to revisit the decision, the termination is to proceed in accordance with the Court’s prior directions.

Also Read– Court Cannot Compel a Woman to Give Birth: Supreme Court Allows Termination of 30-Week Pregnancy of Minor
https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-reproductive-autonomy-30-week-pregnancy-termination/

Appearing for the Union, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati placed before the Court a medical opinion from AIIMS Delhi stating that termination was no longer medically viable and would result in the birth of a live child with severe deformities, while also endangering the minor mother’s long-term reproductive health.

“With profound pain we have to mention this termination is not possible. It will be a live baby with severe deformities. The minor mother will have lifelong health issues and may not be able to reproduce,” MS Bhati submitted.

The Bench, however, made it clear that the ultimate decision must rest with the minor survivor and her parents, with the role of the Court and medical professionals limited to facilitating an informed choice. It directed that the family be fully apprised of the medical consequences before taking a final call.

“Please take a second view, a second call. If needed, involve a psychiatrist or counsellor. And thereafter, if the family, the parents and the child, choose not to have the birth, so be it. Let us not choose for people who are capable of choosing.”

Considering the position of the minor rape survivor, Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that the key consideration would be the long-term impact on her health and life. CJI observed:

“This is a case of child rape. Victim will have lifelong scar and trauma. This is foetus vs child fight.”

However, Bhati pushed back:

“This is not foetus versus child… this is in the best interest of the child. The minor mother will suffer lifelong consequences,” she argued.

Doctors from AIIMS informed the Court that late-stage termination would not end the foetus’ life but lead to the birth of a severely disabled child requiring prolonged intensive care.

“This baby would survive require ventilation for months, multiple surgerie and may live without family support,” a senior doctor said, citing a similar case of a child surviving with severe disabilities after such a procedure.

The Bench repeatedly underscored that the focus must remain on the dignity, trauma, and autonomy of the minor survivor, cautioning against shifting attention solely to the unborn child.

“We are focusing on the child yet to be born instead of the girl who has already suffered..please always keep in mind, it’s not the question of that prospective birth of a healthy child and then ultimately people waiting for their adoption or anything. Here the question that how to restore, if at all, a part of, the dignity of a child who has been violated, who has been physically assaulted, who has faced this trauma, we don’t know for how many months she is facing, and every second for her is hell in life. So please think of, just concentrate on that girl child.”

At the same time, it made clear that medical opinion, while important, cannot override individual choice, particularly in matters involving such deeply personal consequences.

“So let not the medical personnel because of their specialized knowledge become the masters of the will of the people. The people will decide we are also service providers. As judges, we cannot decide for the litigant. If a litigant comes to us with a case, even if we know that this case has no merit, we have to deal with it as per procedures of law. So does the doctors need to do. They can’t decide for their patients.”

When the Additional Solicitor General argued that the statutory framework permits termination only up to 24 weeks, even in cases of rape, the Court clarified that such limits do not bind its constitutional jurisdiction. It noted that this was precisely why it had invoked its powers under Article 142.

“That cut-off is for statutory authorities, not for us…we have exercised powers under Article 142,” the Court observed.

Directing comprehensive counselling, the Court declined to entertain the curative plea at this stage unless initiated by the minor or her family. Justice Joylamya Bagchi observed:

“Please do that (come to the court again) and don’t press your curative application. If a curative is to come, it should come from them, that we have understood and we want to correct this error. Not from you. If they come, yes, we will consider it. When we come with the curative, we will definitely admit it. – Let’s not make it a fight between the state and its citizens.”