Reiterating its pro-choice stand, the Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a curative petition by AIIMS doctors for reconsideration of its order to terminate a 15-year-old rape victim’s 30-week pregnancy, saying it has to be the choice of the survivor and her parents.“This is a curative petition. Unwanted pregnancy cannot be thrust upon a person. Imagine! She is a child… She should be studying now. But we want to make her a mother. Imagine the pain, the humiliation the child has suffered in this…,” A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said.“If the mother (minor victim) does not have permanent disability, then it (termination of pregnancy) should be carried out,” it said.Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the upper limit for termination of pregnancy is 24 weeks for married women, special categories, including survivors of rape and other vulnerable women such as those differently-abled and minors. In exceptional cases where the mother’s life is in danger or the foetus is abnormal, the 24-week time limit can be breached. The Supreme Court has in several cases permitted termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory period.However, the Bench on Thursday asked the Centre to consider further amending the law to permit rape survivors to terminate unwanted pregnancies even beyond 24 weeks. “When there is pregnancy due to rape, there should not be a time limit…Law needs to be organic and in sync with evolving time,” it said.The top court’s comments came after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati mentioned the AIIMS doctors’ curative petition requesting reconsideration of the April 24 order, saying the termination of pregnancy was not possible.“With profound pain we have to mention this curative. This curative is from AIIMS. Termination of pregnancy is not possible. It will be a live baby with severe deformities. The minor mother will have lifelong health issues and cannot reproduce. I am sorry I am not composed…,” the ASG submitted.“It will be a live baby with severe deformities. The minor mother will have lifelong health issues and cannot reproduce. The minor mother will have lifelong health issues. This child can be given for adoption. It has been 30 weeks now. It is a viable life now,” Bhati submitted.As the ASG said AIIMS doctors should be allowed to counsel the minor and her parents, the Bench allowed it with the rider that the decision on termination of pregnancy had to be the choice of the survivor and her parents and AIIMS may only help them to make an informed decision.Bhati and two AIIMS doctors, who appeared before the court in person, tried to impress upon the Bench that it would not be in the interest of the minor victim and the unborn child to go for termination of 30-week pregnancy. They said after four weeks, the minor would deliver a normal baby which could be given to someone in adoption.However, the Bench made it clear that it has to be the choice of the minor and her parents.“There are children for adoption. In this country we have a lot of sympathies…There are deserted, abandoned children on the streets and even mafias on it. We have to look at them. This is an unwanted pregnancy of a 15-year-old child,” the CJI said.Acting on a petition filed by the mother of the minor seeking permission for medical termination of pregnancy beyond the statutory period prescribed under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the Supreme Court had on April 24 held that courts can’t force a woman, especially a minor, to carry a pregnancy against her will.It had directed that she should be allowed to undergo medical termination of pregnancy at AIIMS, New Delhi, subject to all necessary medical safeguards. It directed the petitioner—the minor’s mother—to submit an undertaking consenting to the procedure on her behalf.A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the reproductive autonomy of a woman must be accorded the highest importance and if a woman, carrying an unwanted pregnancy, was compelled to continue it then her constitutional rights would be violated.“The right to make decisions concerning one’s body particularly in matters of reproduction is an integral facet of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The right cannot be rendered ineffective by imposing unreasonable restrictions especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies such as in the instant case,” the Bench said.“No court ought to compel any woman and more so a minor child to carry a pregnancy to full term against her express will. Such compulsion would not only disregard her decision autonomy but also inflict grave mental, emotional and physical trauma in case she is compelled to give birth,” it said.The top court had emphasised that the choice of the pregnant woman was relevant rather than that of the child to be born, saying continuation of such a pregnancy could have long lasting repercussions on the minor’s mental health, educational prospects, social standing and overall development.