SC warns Union govt of contempt over delay in minor’s abortion order

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Supreme Court on Monday warned the Union government of contempt proceedings if it failed to comply with its April 24 order permitting a 15-year-old Delhi girl to terminate her over 28-week pregnancy at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), making it clear that the procedure must be carried out without delay. The warning comes two days after the court delivered a strongly worded ruling foregrounding reproductive autonomy and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (HT)A bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan rejected an urgent plea by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati to list a review petition in open court, even as the law officer flagged “grave” medical concerns. “You have to follow our order or face contempt,” the bench told Bhati, underscoring that the operative directions had already been issued on April 24 and were binding. The court also expressed surprise at the government’s haste in seeking a review before the detailed judgment was released. “We released the operative part of the order on the same day. The detailed order is yet to be released and you have filed the review without even waiting for the full order?” remarked the bench, declining to entertain the request for immediate listing. The warning comes two days after the court delivered a strongly worded ruling foregrounding reproductive autonomy and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Allowing the minor to undergo termination despite the pregnancy having crossed the statutory threshold under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the bench had held that no woman, “and more so a minor child”, can be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term against her will. The court had emphasised that constitutional courts must prioritise the welfare and wishes of the pregnant woman over procedural limitations where continuation of pregnancy would result in severe mental and physical trauma. It warned that forcing a woman to continue such a pregnancy would render her “subordinate” to the child yet to be born and amount to a direct affront to her dignity. On Monday, the bench reiterated that its directions were to be implemented forthwith, leaving little room for administrative or legal hesitation. The minor, who has been admitted at AIIMS since April 10, is to undergo the procedure with all necessary medical safeguards in place. The Union had, in earlier hearings, raised concerns about the risks involved in late-term termination and the possibility of caring for both the minor and the child if the pregnancy were carried to term. The court, however, had rejected this approach, cautioning that denying relief in cases of unwanted pregnancies, particularly involving minors, could drive women towards unsafe and illegal abortion practices. The government’s move to file a review petition appears to have done little to alter the court’s immediate stance. The matter is expected to proceed in due course, but the court’s message on Monday was unambiguous: the termination must be carried out. In its April 24 ruling, the bench held that the right to make decisions concerning one’s body, particularly in matters of reproduction, is an intrinsic facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21. “If the pregnant woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is compelled to continue such a pregnancy, then the constitutional rights of the pregnant woman would be breached,” noted the court. The bench further stressed that the welfare and best interests of the mother must take precedence, cautioning against approaches that render her “subordinate to the child yet to be born.” In cases of unwanted pregnancy, the court said, directing continuation would negate her dignity, autonomy, and long-term well-being. The MTP Act, first enacted in 1971 and then amended in 2021, allows all women to undergo abortion legally for up to 20 weeks, and gives a further extension to women on account of mental anguish, rape, assault and health complications, among others. The ruling also clarified the role of constitutional courts when statutory remedies are unavailable, particularly in cases where pregnancies cross the gestational limits prescribed under the MTP Act. Rejecting a rigid application of statutory timelines, the bench said that courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 must weigh the facts from the perspective of the woman seeking termination. The bench took note of the minor’s psychological distress, including reported attempts to take her own life, observing that forcing continuation of the pregnancy would have “long-lasting repercussions” on her mental health, education, social standing, and overall development. The pregnancy, the court noted, arose out of a consensual relationship between two minors and was unequivocally unwanted. The girl had clearly expressed her unwillingness to continue with it and was prepared to undergo the medical risks associated with termination.