The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly asserted the primacy of a citizen's autonomy of choice in medical decisions, rejecting AIIMS-Delhi's repeated attempts to reconsider its order for termination of a 15-year-old girl's 30-week pregnancy. The court emphasized that a minor cannot be burdened with motherhood and lifelong stigma, and directed the state to respect the informed choice of the girl's parents.
Court's Firm Stance on Personal Autonomy
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi underscored that the state must give primacy to personal and bodily autonomy. The court instructed AIIMS to explain the pros and cons of termination to the parents of the girl, who became pregnant in a relationship with a 17-year-old boy. The bench made it clear that the doctors' professional expertise should not override the patient's will.
AIIMS Plea and Medical Concerns
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing AIIMS, made an impassioned plea, arguing that termination at this stage would essentially be a premature delivery, leading to future reproductive complications for the girl and severe deformities in the baby, requiring prolonged neonatal care. She stated that deferring the delivery by four weeks would result in a normal delivery with a healthy child and minimal risk to the mother. Bhati also assured that the state would care for the baby and that adoption chances for a normal child would be higher.
"Identity of the girl and baby would be kept confidential. This feticide will be harmful both to mother and baby," Bhati argued. However, the court remained unmoved, emphasizing that the parents' informed choice must take precedence.
Court's Reaction to AIIMS Persistence
Justice Bagchi expressed irritation at AIIMS's persistent attempts to sway the court, stating, "Give respect to the citizen's choice. Share your data and let them choose. If they choose to preserve a life, so be it. If they choose termination to avoid ignominy and mental pain, so be it. Please don't press your curative petition. If at all a curative is to be filed, it should be by the parents, not AIIMS."
He criticized the 'parens patriae' approach, where the state assumes a paternal role, saying, "What is your 'parens patriae' approach? Your approach now is 'I will choose for my citizens, rather than have an informed choice from the citizens.'"
Doctors Cannot Be Masters of Will
Justice Bagchi further asserted, "Medical personnel, because of their specialised knowledge, cannot become masters of the will of people. The people will decide. Doctors can't decide for patients." He urged AIIMS to counsel the parents about the medical intricacies and let them make an informed choice, warning against creating an adversarial climate between the state and citizens.
CJI Surya Kant added, "We are sorry we cannot do anything. It's a fight between a fetus and a child. The child (a 15-year-old girl) must survive and lead a dignified life. She cannot be forced to bear a child. We appreciate the predicament of the doctors because of professional and medical ethics. But let the termination bring solace to the child and bail her out of a life-long scar and stigma."
The court also noted that it would not entertain AIIMS's curative petition, which had failed to persuade an earlier bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna to review the termination order.
