TITLE OF THE CASE – X v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
PETITIONER- X
RESPONDENT- PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF NCT DELHI
CASE CITATION- 2022 SCC Online SCC 1321
CASE TYPE- SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner in the present case is a permanent resident of Manipur who is currently living in Delhi. She is the oldest amongst five children and her parents are farmers. She is a twenty-five-year-old unmarried woman who had become pregnant after having consensual relations with her partner who had declined to marry her at the final stage.
The petitioner desired to terminate her pregnancy because she did not want to face social ostracism and persecution as an unmarried single parent. Furthermore, without a stable source of income, she was not mentally prepared to raise the child. Further continuation of her pregnancy would cause grave injury to her mental health.
She sought permission to terminate her pregnancy under Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and Rule 3 (B) c of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 (as amended in 2021) and approached the High Court under a writ petition.
However, the High Court rejected her request and stated that since she was an unmarried woman and consensual relations caused the pregnancy, Section 3 (2)(b) of the MTP Act was not applicable to the facts of the present case and does not come under the umbrella of any of the clauses and sub clauses of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules. The order of the High Court thus gave rise to the appeal in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Is Section 3(2) clause (b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 in conflict with Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
- Should victims of marital rape have the right to undergo an abortion without needing their husband’s consent?
- According to Article 21 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty, do unmarried women have the right to terminate a pregnancy?
- Does clause c of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules and section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act include unmarried women regarding the right to abortion?
CONTENTIONS
THE COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT- DR. AMIT MISHRA MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS-
Firstly, the appellant did not possess the financial capability to raise and nurture the child. She was unmarried and her partner had refused to marry her. Furthermore, she was unemployed, and her parents were farmers.
Secondly, if she was forced to conceive and raise the baby, both her mental and physical health would be greatly hampered. Moreover, she did not wish to be subject to the social stigma attached to single unwed others.
Lastly, Section 3 (2)(b) of the MTP Act as well as Rule 3B of the MTP Rules are exclusionary towards unmarried woman. They exclude unmarried woman from their scope and therefore discriminate on the grounds of marital status of women. Therefore, they are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ms. Aishwarya Bharti learned senior counsel and Additional Solicitor General assisted the Court in interpreting Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act along with Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules. The following submissions were made by her-
Firstly, the interpretation of statute must be done according to the content of the statute along with its aim and objective. It should be guided by the Statement of Objects and Reasons.
Secondly, interpretation should not remain static and must evolve according to the changing needs of society. Literal interpretation should be avoided, and purposive interpretation must be followed.
Furthermore, subordinate legislations should follow the aims and objectives of the statute it is enacted under. In case of multiple interpretations, the one which follows the statutory scheme should be followed.
The phrase “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) should be interpreted as “change in the status of a relationship” so that it covers unmarried or single women as well as women who are not divorced but are separated under its scope.
Further, “Live-in relationships” are like marital relationships because in both types of relationships, the woman is entitled to receive maintenance. Many national legislations, including the MTP Act, do not make a difference between married women and unmarried or single women.
Lastly, women are entitled to bodily integrity, autonomy, and the right to make decisions about their own reproductive health.
RATIONALE-
The Supreme Court bench which consisted of Justices D.Y Chandrachud, A.S Bopanna and J.B Pardiwala, held that the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the law was highly narrow in scope. The Supreme Court issued an interim order in favor of the respondent giving her permission to have an abortion after approval from a medical board formed by AIIMS Delhi. The court cited the case of Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, stating that family structures can include unmarried or queer partnerships. Thus, legal recognition of these relationships is necessary for individuals in non-traditional families to enjoy the benefits of the Act. The law should not adopt narrow patriarchal systems that unjustly distinguish and discriminate and exclude groups based on their personal characteristics. Under Article 21, the rights to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy give unmarried women the same right to decide on having a child as married women. The ruling upheld and emphasized the equal status of married and unmarried women, the right to reproductive autonomy, the mental health impact of unwanted pregnancies, and the right to dignity.
The Supreme Court held the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules (MTPR) unconstitutional because it excluded unmarried women in live-in relationships from its scope. The Court stated that limiting the MTPR benefits to married women reinforces the mistaken belief that sexual activity is limited to marriage. The Court held that single women have equal reproductive rights as married women. Referring to Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors, the Court acknowledged that deciding whether to give birth comes under a woman’s right to live with dignity under Article 21.
Preventing an unmarried woman from getting a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom, as noted in S Khusboo v. Kanniammal. The Court held that criminal law should not be used to undermine individual autonomy, which violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. In Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Court established that women’s right to reproductive autonomy is a fundamental part of their freedoms under Article 21, granting them an inalienable right to physical integrity. The bench also referred to Kesavananda Bharati v. Kerala, which recognized dignity as a core value and right. Therefore, the Court upheld the claimant’s right to dignity under Article 21 and allowed her to terminate her pregnancy. The bench gave an interim order to form a committee of doctors to oversee the termination. Moreover, the judgement recognized marital rape as a form of rape.
DEFECTS OF LAW
Even though the judgement made progressive steps towards upholding a woman’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, it could have gone one step further and criminalized marital rape as an offence under the IPC instead of leaving that decision to the Legislature which is highly unlikely to take that step on its own. However, for the purposes of the MTP Act, it did recognize marital rape as a form of rape giving sparks of possibility for the future and enlightening the conversation on the topic of marital rape.
INFERENCE
This judgement is regarded as one of the landmark judgements which upheld women’s right to bodily and reproductive autonomy by adopting a progressive view. It highlighted that law needs to be dynamic and should progress according to the needs of the society.
Moreover, the court interpreted “mental health,” in a broad manner recognizing that it entails more than just the absence of mental illness. It stated that an unwanted pregnancy could harm mental health under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act. Furthermore, the Court ended distinction between the rape of an unmarried woman and marital rape, stating that the term ‘rape’ in Rule 3B of the MTP Act includes ‘marital rape’. This ruling marks an important step towards acknowledging women’s rights to physical and reproductive independence. The Supreme Court’s ruling has opened the possibility for the criminalization of marital rape, highlighting the urgent need for Indian criminal laws to recognize it as an offense. However, the Court did not criminalize marital rape in this ruling, leaving that decision to the Legislature.