0
0
New Delhi, July 5, 2025 — The All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) has filed an urgent appeal in the Delhi High Court contesting a single judge’s order from June 30 that permitted the termination of a 16-year-old rape survivor’s pregnancy at 27 weeks. AIIMS warned that such a late-stage procedure could have serious and lasting consequences for the minor’s reproductive health.
The case centers on a minor who became pregnant following two separate incidents of sexual assault, the first occurring during Diwali in 2024 and the second in March 2025. The pregnancy was discovered only after the statutory 24-week window for medical termination had expired, as outlined by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act.
AIIMS, represented by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, argued before a division bench led by Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal that terminating the pregnancy at this stage would amount to foeticide and is legally permissible only if there is a grave risk to the mother’s life or if the fetus has severe anomalies. The AIIMS medical board found the girl physically stable and stated that a pre-term delivery would likely require a caesarean section, posing significant risks to her future ability to conceive.
Initially, the minor and her family were unwilling to continue with the pregnancy. However, after the court encouraged them to consider the medical board’s recommendations and the possibility of post-delivery adoption, the girl agreed to carry the pregnancy to term. The bench described the situation as “very unfortunate and precarious,” and ordered that the minor be kept at AIIMS for the remainder of her pregnancy, with both she and the child to receive free care for five years. The Delhi government was also directed to provide a detailed affidavit on the support it would offer the survivor and her child.
The case has highlighted the complex intersection of legal, medical, and ethical considerations in late-term pregnancy terminations, especially involving minors who are victims of sexual assault. The court noted the anxiety and trauma faced by the survivor, while also weighing the medical risks and statutory restrictions under current law.
Disclaimer: This article is based on information available as of July 5, 2025, from multiple news sources. The case is ongoing, and further legal or medical developments may alter the circumstances described above. The article does not constitute legal or medical advice.
