The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a fresh attempt by the Centre and AIIMS-Delhi to avoid medical termination of the 30-week foetus of a 15-year-old rape survivor.

The court asserted that the issue involved "lifelong trauma" and the choice should be left to the girl and her parents.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi rejected the plea of additional solicitor-general Aishwarya Bhati for permitting continuance of the pregnancy. On Thursday, another bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan issued contempt notices to the principal secretary in the ministry of health and family welfare and the AIIMS director for defying its April 24 order to terminate the pregnancy.

The bench warned that if the medical termination is not carried out by May 4, the next date of hearing, then the top officials would be subjected to contempt proceedings.

In this case, while the Centre and AIIMS had been pitching for permitting the girl to deliver a baby, her parents had sought medical termination of the foetus to avoid stigma, trauma and other related consequences on account of the rape.

On April 24, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman cannot be compelled to continue with a pregnancy and should be allowed to terminate it even if there is a statutory bar under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (Amendment), 2021, as it would otherwise affect the woman's fundamental right to bodily integrity and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The bench of Justices Nagarathna and Bhuyan had passed the directions while directing AIIMS-Delhi to facilitate the medical termination of the pregnancy. Delhi High Court had dismissed the family's plea for abortion. However, AIIMS and the Centre filed review petitions seeking permission to continue with the pregnancy on the plea that if the foetus was medically terminated, it would result in grave health, reproductive and other issues to the girl. The review plea, too, was dismissed earlier this week.

On Thursday, during the morning mentioning time, additional solicitor-general Bhati, along with doctors from AIIMS, had through a curative petition made a renewed bid for continuing with the pregnancy before the CJI-led bench and said the Centre would ensure that once the girl gives birth, the baby could be given for adoption. Bhati said the best interests of the girl would be taken care of by the government.

"This is a case of child rape. The victim will have a lifelong scar and trauma. This is ‘foetus vs child fight'," the CJI said, to which Bhati responded: "This is not a foetus vs child fight. This is in the best interest of the child. The minor mother will have lifelong health issues."

The CJI refused to buy the argument, saying that even if the minor has a complicated marital life later, the "pain" of delivering the child of a rapist was more traumatic.

Justice Bagchi suggested that the court was willing to reconsider its decision, provided the girl’s parents approached it for continuing with the pregnancy.