NEW DELHI: Citing medical ethics and the rights of an unborn child, AIIMS, directed by a Supreme Court bench led by Justice BV Nagarathna to terminate the 28-week pregnancy of a 15-year-old on Monday sought a review of the order, saying it would lead to preterm delivery of a deformed baby needing prolonged NICU support.AIIMS cited a fresh medical board opinion, saying the fetus is viable and preterm delivery could cause long-term disabilities and pose grave risk to the minor mother. It said if the baby is carried to term, the state could care for it till adoption.Referring to a similar case, AIIMS said a prematurely delivered baby continues to need NICU support, suffered repeated sepsis, and remains dependent on tracheostomy care.On Friday, a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had directed termination, giving primacy to reproductive autonomy of the minor, who was in a consensual relationship with a 17-year-old.When additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati mentioned the plea for urgent hearing, Justice Nagarathna questioned the review move. AIIMS said the “unborn viable child” cannot speak for itself and depends on the court’s parens patriae jurisdiction to protect its right to life.The court had held reproductive autonomy a fundamental right, saying termination cannot be denied due to advanced pregnancy or fetal normalcy, as that would render bodily autonomy “nugatory”. It said the right to make reproductive choices is part of personal liberty under Article 21 and cannot be restricted, especially in cases involving minors and unwanted pregnancies.“Moreover, the invocation of fetal normalcy or the fact that the pregnancy has been carried for a considerable duration as grounds to deny termination is of no constitutional persuasiveness. These arguments proceed on the assumptions: first, that in the absence of fetal abnormality, the continuation of pregnancy is unobjectionable, and second, that the passage of time extinguishes the pregnant woman’s claim to decisional autonomy. We wish to lay to rest both the above arguments,” the court said.It said access to termination over the existence of a fetal anomaly amounts to making the woman’s rights subordinate to the condition of the fetus, over which she has no control. “As a matter of constitutional principle, this cannot be allowed. Rights are not functions of circumstance; they attach to humans for the reason that they are free moral agents…” it said.AIIMS, in its plea, said, “The court’s order proceeds on the premise of termination of pregnancy; however, the medical reality, as disclosed by the post-order assessment, is that a living, viable child will be prematurely delivered into the world.”
