सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 30‑सप्ताह गर्भावस्था समाप्ति आदेश के संबंध में AIIMS को कंटेम्प नोटिस जारी किया

<h2>Supreme Court Contempt Proceedings against AIIMS</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring the rule of law (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> on <strong>30 May 2026</strong> issued a notice in a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Contempt of Court — willful disobedience of a court order, punishable to uphold judicial authority (GS2: Polity)">contempt petition</span> alleging that <span class="key-term" data-definition="All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) — premier medical institution and autonomous body under the Ministry of Health, often involved in high‑profile health‑law cases (GS2: Polity)">AIIMS</span>, New Delhi, had not complied with its earlier order permitting the termination of a 30‑week pregnancy of a 15‑year‑old girl.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Justices <strong>BV Nagarathna</strong> and <strong>Ujjal Bhuyan</strong> directed the Principal Secretary of Health, the Secretary of Health, and the Director of AIIMS to appear via video conference on <strong>4 May 2026</strong>.</li> <li>The Court warned that failure to comply would lead to framing of contempt charges.</li> <li>The original order dated <strong>24 April 2026</strong> allowed termination beyond the statutory limit of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2022 — legislation governing the conditions under which a pregnancy can be legally terminated, including gestational limits (GS3: Health & Welfare)">Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act</span>.</li> <li>AIIMS challenged the order through a review petition (dismissed) and later filed a <span class="key-term" data-definition="Curative petition — a rare remedy filed to correct a gross miscarriage of justice after a Supreme Court judgment (GS2: Polity)">curative petition</span>, which the Court refused to entertain.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <ul> <li>The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship between two minors; the girl explicitly expressed her unwillingness to continue.</li> <li>The Court held that forcing a woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy violates <span class="key-term" data-definition="Article 21 of the Indian Constitution — guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to privacy and bodily autonomy (GS2: Polity)">Article 21</span> and would cause grave mental, emotional and physical trauma.</li> <li>The Union of India, represented by Solicitor General <strong>Tushar Mehta</strong>, argued that termination at 30 weeks endangers both mother and fetus and suggested adoption via the Central Adoption Resource Authority.</li> <li>The Court rejected the adoption‑only approach, emphasizing that the woman's informed choice is paramount.</li> <li>AIIMS doctors may counsel the girl and share medical reports, but the institution cannot return to the Court to press its own p