NEW DELHI: Taking exception to AIIMS-Delhi repeatedly seeking reconsideration of its order for termination of a 15-year-old’s 30-week pregnancy, citing health hazards for her and the foetus, Supreme Court on Thursday said govt must respect a citizen’s autonomy of choice as a minor can’t be burdened with motherhood and life-long stigma.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi repeatedly laid emphasis on the State giving primacy to personal and bodily autonomy of citizens, and told AIIMS to explain the pros and cons of termination of pregnancy to the parents of the girl, who got pregnant while in a relationship with a 17-year-old boy.Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS, made an impassioned and emotional plea, saying termination is impossible at this state and it would have to be a premature delivery, which would create future reproductive complications for the girl, while the baby would be born with several deformities, requiring prolonged neonatal intensive care. If it can be deferred by four weeks, it would be a normal delivery, and the child would be healthy, coupled with little risk to the pregnant girl, said AIIMS professors Aparna Sharma (gynaecology) and Ramesh Agarwal (paediatrics). They said the state would take care of the baby and chances of adoption of a normal child would be higher.“Identity of the girl and baby would be kept confidential. This foeticide will be harmful both to mother and baby,” Bhati said.CJI Kant understood the ethical dilemma faced by the doctors, but remained firm that the choice the parents of the minor make, after they have been informed about possible future complications, should take precedence. SC said it would not entertain the curative petition by AIIMS, which also failed to persuade a bench led by Justice B V Nagarathna to review its decision for termination of the pregnancy.Docs can’t become masters of the will of people, says Supreme CourtAdditional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for AIIMS, hati argued that in the case of a normal delivery, “the identity of the girl and the baby would be kept confidential”. She added that “this feticide will be harmful both to mother and baby”.Bhati’s attempt to persist with persuasion a drew sharp reaction from Justice Joymalya Bagchi, who said, “Give respect to the citizen’s choice. Share your data and let them choose. If they choose to preserve a life, which we understand is at an advanced stage, so be it. If they choose that the ignominy and pain, which includes mental health, is to be cured by termination of the pregnancy, 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.” Expressing irritation that the doctors had taken upon themselves to decide what will be the best course, Justice Bagchi said, “What is your ‘parens patriae’ approach? Your ‘parens patriae’ approach now is ‘I will choose for my citizens, rather than have an informed choice from the citizens.”Parens patriae refers to the State or a court having a paternal and protective role over its citizens.“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 said.When Bhati attempted to explain the medical complications, Justice Bagchi said, “Let us not make it a fight between the State and citizen. You are portraying it as such. Go back and counsel the parents about the intricacies involved in the exercise and the harm that could entail to the 15-year-old and tell them to make an informed choice.”“As soon as the State comes in, it creates an adversarial climate, which is not good,” the SC judge said, adding that “as in the cases of surgical interventions, after the consequences are spelt out, it is for the patient to make a decision and that decision is respected. We will respect that decision.”CJI Surya Kant said, “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.”“What is the reality? Can she be made a mother at the age of 15 years? We must decide what is less painful and stigmatic between termination of pregnancy and making the 15-year-old a mother. We understand the pain the doctors are expressing,” CJI Kant added.