In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that unmarried women could obtain an abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy due to a change in their marital circumstances. A 25-year-old woman appealed a Delhi High Court ruling that denied her request for an abortion during the 23rd week of her pregnancy to the Supreme Court. She said that although she had become pregnant through a consensual relationship, her partner had declined to get married. This, she argued, prompted a change in her marital status under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, which allowed women to obtain an abortion between 20-24 weeks of pregnancy, based on listed criteria. The Court ruled that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy encompassed her right to privacy, enabling her to decide whether to end her pregnancy if her marital status changed. It would be against the act’s constitutional mandate to read Rule 3B of the MTP Rules narrowly so as to exclude single women in such a situation. As a result, the Court decided that in order to give unmarried women access to safe and authorized abortions during the 20–24 week gestational period, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules would need to be read more liberally.
FACTS-
The petitioner is a consenting 25-year-old unmarried adult woman. She was engaged in a consensual relation relationship. The petitioner, an unmarried woman filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to abort her pregnancy after learning that her partner had abandoned her. She was 22 weeks along when the pregnancy was discovered. The petitioner requested a pregnancy termination from the court because of her financial circumstances, social shame and due to being deserted from her partner.
In front of the court, the petitioner pleaded for the following things:
- Allow the Petitioner to get a pregnancy termination through an authorized doctor at any government or private center that has been licensed.
- Prevent the Respondent from pursuing any criminal charges or coercive measures against the Petitioner or any licensed medical professional who terminates the Petitioner’s pregnancy.
- Direct the Respondent to extend the provisions of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 (as amended on 21.10.2021) to unmarried women in order to allow them to terminate their pregnancies for a maximum of twenty-four weeks under clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 3 of the MTP Act.
The MTP Act’s provision for the termination of a pregnancy between weeks 20 and 24. Pregnancy termination for “change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (being widowed and divorce)” is permitted under MTP Rules Rule 3B(c). The Delhi High Court ruled that this provision could only apply to married women and that single women were not eligible to be taken into consideration. The matter was appealed to the Supreme Court when the court rejected the procedure.
ISSUES RAISED-
Whether unmarried women were covered under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules which allows for the termination of a pregnancy between 20-24 weeks due to change in their marital status, questioning the validity of exclusion of unmarried women.
Whether this exclusion of unmarried women from MTP Rules is violative of article – 14 of Indian Constitution, Equality before Law.
Whether Article- 21 of Indian constitution is violated?
CONTENTION-
Petitioner-
Experienced medical professional Dr. Amit Mishra argued that the petitioner was a single mother with not adequate source of income to support herself and her child, and that her parents were farmers. She claimed that she was not ready to carry on with her pregnancy, that her mental health was suffering due to social stigma, and that she would undoubtedly harm her body if the court denied her request to end the pregnancy. Article 14 or 21 of the Indian Constitution is being violated because it is her choice to her reproductive system and whether or not to end the pregnancy. If you are not granting her the ability to do so, this court is violating her right to do so and is discriminating against women based on their marital status.
Respondent-
Section 3(2) of the MTP Act and regulations 3(b)(c) of the MTP rules have been interpreted by this court with the competent help of Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General and a qualified senior lawyer. In support of her argument that single or unmarried women in committed relationships are also covered by rule 3(b)(C), she produced the following documentation. It is important to consider how society has changed since the laws were passed while interpreting current legislation. Beneficial legislation ought not to be interpreted literally. They ought to be interpreted with intention.
In addition, she maintained that since women are entitled to maintenance in all types of relationships, having children and having an abortion are equal to marriage. Furthermore, children born under such circumstances have the right to succeed their parents; the MTP act is one of several national legislation that does not discriminate between married and single or unmarried women.
In response to the petitioner’s contention regarding marital status, she asserted that the term of “change of marital status” in rule 3(B)(C) should actually be interpreted as “change in the status of a relationship,” which would encompass women who are single or abandoned as well. She claimed that because women are entitled to maintenance in both live-in and married partnerships, they are equal.
JUDGEMENT-
The Court ruled in a majority decision that unmarried women would fall under the purview of Rule 3B if they wanted to end a pregnancy that was between 20 and 24 weeks due to a change in their marital status. In this case, the Court granted the appellant access to the termination procedure in compliance with the MTP Act’s stipulations.
The Court ruled that women’s rights to equality, privacy, and control over their reproductive systems must all be taken into account while interpreting the MTP Act. It restated the ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India ((2017) 10 SCC 1), which maintained that the freedom to decide whether to get pregnant or not was protected by the right to privacy. Body autonomy, or the capacity to make choices regarding personal relationships, is a component of the right to privacy. The Court acknowledged that, in the event of an unintended pregnancy, the woman would bear the majority of the burden, which would negatively impact her physical and emotional well-being, regardless of her marital status. According to the Court, the woman would be the only one with control over her body and the last say in whether or not she decided to have an abortion.
The Supreme court bench comprising of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna and J.B. Pardiwala was of the view that the Delhi High court took a restricted view in interpreting the rules. The bench took notice of the amendment that changed the word “husband” to “partner,” believing that there needed to be a purposeful reading. The bench said that evolving societal standards must be taken into consideration when interpreting the legislation. The MTP Act was primarily focused on married women when it was passed in 1971, but it now needs to recognize and adjust to legally non-traditional family forms as well due to shifting social standards.
Ultimately, the Court applied the rules of statute interpretation and determined that a legislation could not be narrowly interpreted in a way that would render the law unconstitutional. As a result, the Court determined that in order to fulfill the constitutional imperative that married and unmarried women have the right to safe and legal abortions between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy, section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, read in conjunction with Rule 3B, must be interpreted.
RATIONALE-
The court noted that the purpose of MTP Act, 1971 Rule 3(2) (b) in conjunction with Rule 3B is to enable women who are between 20 and 24 weeks pregnant and have an unintended pregnancy due to certain conditions to get a safe and lawful abortion. Consequently, there is no justification or rationale for excluding single or unmarried women from the rule’s application.
The court’s decision further pointed out that it would be discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution to limit the application of the law to only married women. Article 14 of the constitution would be violated if unmarried or single pregnant women with pregnancies between twenty and twenty-four weeks were denied access to abortions but married women were granted access during the same period.
The three-judge bench further noted that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees women’s freedom to terminate a pregnancy if doing so will seriously and severely harm their mental health.
DEFECTS IN LAW-
The new law increases the gestational restriction for pregnancy termination from 20 to 24 weeks in some cases. However, some argue that this cap may still be restrictive and may not account for specific situations where late-term abortions may be necessary due to fetal abnormalities or health risks to the woman. The statute itself has to be amended to reflect the modifications suggested by this case law.
INFERENCE-
Because it acknowledged that women can have non-consensual sexual relations with their spouses, the court determined that it was appropriate to include marital rape in the definition of rape under rule 3B (a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy rules. As a result, women who have experienced marital rape are permitted to terminate their pregnancies without their husbands’ consent.
The goal of the decision is to significantly increase the value placed on women’s bodily and reproductive autonomy as well as the right to privacy and dignity as stated in Article 21 of the Constitution. According to Article 21, married and single women have an equal right to the choice of whether or not to have children.
The term “mental health” was broadly construed by the court to mean more than merely the absence of mental illness or impairment. The court pointed out that under MTP Act Section 3(2)(b), an unintended pregnancy may be deemed harmful to mental health.
NAME- Aditi Sharma
COLLEGE- ILS Law College, Pune