(AUGUST-2025)
TASK -2
CASE COMMENT
X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022)
INTRODUCTION:
The question of abortion has consistently sparked debate worldwide, involving a delicate balance between a woman’s right to make decisions about her body and broader social, medical, and legal considerations. In India, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”) provided limited circumstances for abortion, and later amendments — most notably in 2021 — widened its scope. Yet, the law continued to differentiate between married and unmarried women, particularly regarding the extension of abortion rights up to 24 weeks.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (2022) stands as a landmark in India’s reproductive rights discourse. For the first time, the Court held that an unmarried woman could not be deprived of abortion rights solely because of her marital status. This judgment not only broadened the interpretation of the MTP Act but also affirmed the constitutional guarantees of equality under Article 14, as well as the rights to privacy, dignity, and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21.
This commentary evaluates the decision in detail, beginning with the factual background, moving through the legal questions, arguments, and judicial reasoning, and finally reflecting on its wider constitutional and social impact.
FACTS:
The petitioner, a 25-year-old unmarried woman (referred to as X), was in a consensual relationship and became pregnant. At around 22–23 weeks of gestation, she sought medical termination of her pregnancy, stating that she was unable to carry the child due to personal and financial constraints.
She approached the Delhi High Court under the MTP Act, 1971 as amended in 2021, which allows termination up to 24 weeks in certain categories: survivors of sexual assault or rape, minors, widows, divorcees, women with disabilities, mentally ill women, and women whose marital status changes during pregnancy (widowhood/divorce).
The High Court, however, denied her relief. It reasoned that since she was unmarried and her pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, she did not fall under any of the permissible categories listed under the amended Act and Rules.
Aggrieved by this order, she approached the Supreme Court of India, which admitted her petition and stayed the High Court order. The Court then examined whether marital status can be a legitimate ground to restrict reproductive choice.
ISSUES RAISED:
1. Whether making a distinction between married and unmarried women under the amended MTP Act, 1971 is consistent with the Constitution.
2. Whether an unmarried woman can legally seek termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks under the provisions of the MTP Act.
3. Whether the right to make reproductive choices is protected as part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
CONTENTION:
Contentions of the Petitioner (X – the woman)
- Unconstitutional Discrimination
The petitioner argued that excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2021 amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable classification, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. She emphasized that the law should treat women equally, regardless of their marital status.
- Violation of Fundamental Rights under Article 21
It was contended that the denial of abortion solely on the basis of marital status directly infringes upon her right to privacy, dignity, bodily integrity, and reproductive autonomy, all of which are well-recognized components of Article 21. The petitioner placed reliance on K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), which expanded the scope of privacy and personal liberty.
- Purpose of the MTP Amendment Act, 2021
The petitioner highlighted that the 2021 Amendment was enacted to broaden access to safe abortions by extending the upper gestational limit from 20 to 24 weeks for certain categories of women. She contended that the spirit of the amendment was to protect women facing difficult and unforeseen pregnancies, and restricting this right only to married women goes against the very objective of the legislation.
- Changing Social Realities
She submitted that consensual relationships outside marriage are increasingly common in contemporary Indian society. Excluding unmarried women from protection under the MTP Act reflects an outdated notion of morality, which should not dictate the scope of fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy.
- Consequences of Forced Pregnancy
The petitioner further contended that compelling an unmarried woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term may expose her to severe mental, physical, financial, and social hardships. It may also force her into unsafe or illegal methods of abortion, defeating the legislative intent of promoting safe and legal termination of pregnancy.
Contentions of the Respondents (State/Delhi Govt.)
- Statutory Limitation under Rule 3B
The respondents argued that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2021 specifically lists the categories of women eligible to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks. Since unmarried women in consensual relationships are not included, the Delhi High Court correctly denied permission.
- Adherence to Legislative Intent
It was submitted that the categories under Rule 3B represent the will of Parliament, and the judiciary should not expand the scope of the law beyond what has been expressly provided. Any broadening of categories must come from the legislature, not through judicial interpretation.
- Judicial Restraint
The respondents stressed that the courts must respect the principle of separation of powers. While sympathetic to the petitioner’s situation, the judiciary cannot rewrite or amend the law under the guise of interpretation.
- Balancing Competing Interests
The respondents also argued that the State has a duty not only to safeguard the woman’s rights but also to consider the interests of the unborn child, which gain increasing significance as pregnancy advances. The gestational limit of 24 weeks represents a careful legislative balance between the mother’s autonomy and fetal viability.
- Scope of Relief
The State contended that allowing relief outside the prescribed categories could open the floodgates for similar claims, thereby undermining the consistency and certainty of the law. Hence, the High Court’s strict reading of the statute was justified.
RATIONALE::
- Purpose of the MTP Act, 2021
The amendment was intended to widen access to abortion and ensure reproductive health rights. Denying unmarried women the benefit of extended gestation limit defeats this purpose.
- Equality under Article 14
The law cannot make an artificial distinction between married and unmarried women.
Both may face similar difficulties in continuing an unintended pregnancy, so excluding one group is discriminatory.
- Right under Article 21
Reproductive autonomy, privacy, and dignity are integral to the right to life and personal liberty. The decision to carry or terminate a pregnancy lies with the woman, not with the State.
- Changing Social Norms
Non-marital relationships are part of modern society. Restricting abortion rights only to married women reflects outdated stereotypes about family and motherhood.
- Health and Justice Considerations
Forcing an unmarried woman to continue pregnancy against her will may cause physical, mental, and emotional harm. Such an outcome is contrary to both justice and the intent of the MTP Act.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
- Marital Status Discrimination (now judicially corrected)
The 2021 amendment, through Rule 3B, extended the limit for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks, but it restricted this benefit to certain categories of women such as rape survivors, minors, widows, divorcees, women with disabilities, and women whose marital status changed during pregnancy. Unmarried women in consensual relationships were excluded. This exclusion was arbitrary and failed to reflect the social reality of increasing non-marital relationships. Although the Supreme Court in X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept. corrected this gap, the statutory framework still reflects a legislative bias toward marital relationships.
- Doctor-Centric Model
The Act vests decision-making power largely in registered medical practitioners rather than in the woman herself. For pregnancies beyond 20 weeks, the approval of two medical practitioners is required, and beyond 24 weeks, a medical board’s recommendation is necessary. This often undermines the woman’s autonomy and subjects her choice to external approval.
- Limited Recognition of Reproductive Autonomy
The Act does not explicitly recognize abortion as a fundamental right or a matter of absolute choice. Instead, it treats termination as a conditional privilege available under certain grounds. This framework continues to be rooted in a paternalistic approach, where women’s bodies and decisions are regulated by law and medical professionals rather than by the women themselves.
- Delays and Inconsistencies due to Medical Boards
The requirement of medical boards for late-term abortions often creates bureaucratic hurdles, unnecessary delays, and inconsistency in decision-making across states. Many states do not even have functional medical boards, making the provision practically ineffective.
- Lack of Comprehensive Support Mechanisms
The Act primarily focuses on termination procedures but does not address post-abortion counselling, healthcare infrastructure, or social support systems, which are crucial for protecting women’s overall health and dignity.
INFERENCE:
From the interpretation given by the Supreme Court in X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Dept. (2022), it is clear that statutory law on abortion must be read in light of constitutional guarantees. The Court made it explicit that reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 cannot be compromised on the basis of outdated classifications such as marital status. The judgment marked a significant step towards shifting abortion law from a doctor-driven model to a more rights-based framework.
The broader inference is that while the judiciary is progressively advancing women’s rights, legislative reform has not kept pace with social change. The Act continues to reflect a cautious and restrictive attitude, failing to treat abortion as an unconditional right of women. Thus, the case shows how constitutional interpretation can bridge the gap between outdated laws and present-day realities, but also signals the urgent need for Parliament to comprehensively reform abortion law in India to make it woman-centric, inclusive, and accessible in practice.
References
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 2021, INDIA CODE (2021).
X v. Principal Sec’y, Health & Family Welfare Dep’t, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, (2022) 10 SCC 1; 2022 SCC Online SC 905 (India).
Constitution of India, arts. 14, 21.