FACTS:
The appellant, a 25-year-old unmarried Manipur permanent resident, became pregnant after embarking on a consensual relationship. Because “her partner had refused to marry her at the last stage,”[1] she wanted an abortion. She had a negative outlook on the stigma and harassment that come with being an unmarried single parent in society, particularly for women. She further stated that she was unprepared financially and mentally to raise a child on her own, in addition to the fact that she lacked a source of income.
She filed a motion in the high court seeking the following relief:
1) Permit her to undergo an abortion at a public or private hospital from a licensed medical professional. In line with Rule 3B(c) and Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971, as amended on October 12, 2003, by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, the appellant sought permission to terminate her pregnancy. [2]
2) Preventing the Respondent from exercising any form of retaliation.
3) Made a request to include “unmarried women” within the ambit of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, which allows for a pregnancy termination under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP act for a maximum of 24 weeks.
The MTP Rules, 2003, Rule 3B, lists the group of women who are permitted to end their pregnancies up to twenty weeks. These categories were included after the modification from 2021. It includes kids, women with sexual assault, rape, or incest survivors, and
a change in marital status while the pregnancy is still going on, physically or mentally ill women, women whose unborn child may have severe physical or mental abnormalities, and pregnant women in humanitarian settings or in emergency or disaster situations as may be declared by the government
While the Writ Petition was pending, the petitioner intended to obtain a temporary remedy to abort her pregnancy, therefore she filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
However, the criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed by the High Court along with two other petitions, on the grounds that the facts of the case did not make Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act applicable.
This led to the appellant further filing a special leave petition in the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether is it reasonable for “unmarried women” and “single women” to be excluded from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 under Rule 3B, and are they eligible of requesting a pregnancy termination under MTA ACT section 3(2)(b)?
- Whether the law violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution by discriminating against a certain group of women.
CONTENTIONS:
PETITONER –
- The petitioner put forward the argument that she should be allowed to legitimately to terminate her pregnancy though she was an unmarried woman whose partner refused to marry her at the very brink of their relationship. Being unemployed, she lacked every means of bringing up and nurture a child. Being the eldest amongst the five siblings she lacked every kind of financial ability to maintain her family at the very first place.
- • It was brought to the court’s attention that, in addition to not being financially independent, she was also psychologically unprepared to raise a kid on her own, which, if pushed, could cause her great physical and emotional suffering. The petitioner was unprepared to deal with the harassment and social stigma which single parents, particularly women, experience. The MTP Act’s Section 3(2)(b) and Rule 3B of the MTP rules are discriminatory and arbitrary owing to their exclusion of single women from its provisions. They discriminate against women based on their marital status.
- • It was argued in court that the woman may have her pregnancy terminated if her marital status changed while she was still pregnant, making her a widow or a divorcee. Whereas if she is single, then the same cannot hold true, which would violate Article 14—the right to equality. It is necessary to interpret the term “marital status” with purpose rather than restriction. In a similar vein, “widowhood” and “divorce” are not exhaustive terms.
RESPONDENTS:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, a knowledgeable senior council member and Additional Solicitor General, provided assistance to the court in understanding MTP statute section 3(2) and MTP rules Rule 3B. She provided the subsequent prepositions:
- It is necessary to understand laws both in their textual and contextual contexts, bearing in mind the objectives of the mandate. A statute’s purpose and justification statements must also direct how it is interpreted.
- Interpreting laws with a purpose in mind as opposed to following them literally is necessary to keep up with society’s evolution.
- Since women are entitled to maintenance in both marital and “live-in” partnerships, they are comparable to each other. Additionally, the right of succession is granted to the offspring of the relationship in question.
The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 2003, as well as other national laws, fail to distinguish between “married” and “unmarried” or “single women.”
- Rule 3B(c)’s definition of “Change of marital status” should be interpreted as a “change in the status of relationship,” which would include single and unmarried women.
- Women have the right to autonomy and bodily integrity; this also extends to the freedom of pregnancy and reproduction. They have the right to make their own decisions.
RATIONALE:
A purposive interpretation was urged upon the court in lieu of a restrictive one. Rather than interpreting the law literally, the jury chose to follow the path that resulted in the petitioner’s plea being accepted, allowing her to end her pregnancy. This led to the passing of a historical judgment declaring that under MTP ACT Section 3(2)(b), “unmarried” and “single” women will also be permitted to end their pregnancies.
The court ruled that the petitioner would be permitted to proceed with the procedure if her life was not in imminent risk because of the termination.
According to the court’s ruling, interpreting Rule 3B narrowly to exclude unmarried women would discriminate against them and violate Article 14 of the constitution. It would be against the spirit of Article 14 to forbid single or unmarried pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from having an abortion while permitting married women to do so during the same time frame.
The ruling eloquently captured the immense agony that a single woman endures during her pregnancy, suffering that is exacerbated—as is often the case—when she receives no help from her family. As a result, the prevalence of people not licensed to practice medicine rises. Because women are so vulnerable in these situations, these individuals offer the opportunity of a discreet abortion, and instead of choosing a medically safe abortion, these women use their services. As Surendra Chauhan (supra)[3] demonstrates, this frequently has devastating results for the woman.
Consequently, dealing with the mental health issue of the petitioner the court opined that “the determination of one’s mental health status is based on one’s own experiences within one’s environment and social context.” The concept of “mental health” should be best view in larger notion than one that is limited to medical terminology.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
The case X Versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. majorly dealt with The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, section 3(2)(b) which lays down the guidelines regarding the when the pregnancy can be terminated. In which it was states when the pregnancy can be terminated if it goes above twenty weeks but does not exceed the 24 weeks threshold, regarding which the statute says that if the medical practitioner is of the belief that “the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health[4]” then a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner. The section also just dealt with only-
- “Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest
- “Minors
- “Change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and Divorce)
- “Women with physical disabilities
- “Mentally ill women including mental retardation
- “The foetal malformation that has substantial risk if being incompatible with life or if the child born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped
- “Women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the Government.”[5]
Clearly excluding “unmarried or single women” from getting their pregnancy terminated under this particular section based on their situation as there is no such guideline sketched out for them.
In the lawsuit, Article 14 was also contested, with the argument that the MTP Act violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality due to the fact that it fails to offer any relief to “unmarried or single women” or prevents them from receiving any relief under the act.
INFERENCE:
In 2021, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 underwent a historical amendment with the aim of granting the advantages of the act to all women, including single and unmarried women. Additionally, it raised the twenty-week pregnancy termination limit to twenty-four weeks.[6] It also addressed how a woman’s mental health, which applies to all women, not just married ones, is affected by the ineffectiveness of contraception. The court emphasized that the focus should be on the well-being of the woman and not the rigid gestational limits.
This landmark decision paved the way for women to end their pregnancies without hindrance, regardless of their marital status or circumstances, and further distanced them from the harassment and prejudice that they encountered from society. The case yielded numerous significant insights, chief among them being that the statute should not be interpreted literally and exhaustively; rather, it should be examined considering the petitioner’s circumstances as they present themselves before the court seeking justice. The legal process ought to be conducted in both textual and contextual methods.
Second, because of how society has developed, people now must deal with a lot of issues on a daily basis. In these circumstances, mental health is the most susceptible and needs to be treated with the same care and consideration as physical or financial health. It is time for us to adopt a much wider viewpoint as a result. Regardless of their marital status or other circumstances, women now have access to safe and legal abortion services according to the ruling, which also reaffirmed the significance of reproductive autonomy and removed restrictions.
Nevertheless, this ruling continues to be a critical turning point in the advancement of gender equality and reproductive rights in India.
Case Comment By:
Khushi Sahu
Institute of Law, Nirma University
[1]Indian Kanoon,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123985596/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cher%20partner%20had%20refused%20to%20marry%0A%0Aher%20at%20the%20last%20stage.%E2%80%9D (last visited 19th June, 2024)
[2] Indian kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123985596/ (last visited 19th June, 2024).
[3] Surendra Chauhan v. State of M.P. AIR 2000 SC 1436 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/422557/
[4] Indian Kanon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1836566/#:~:text=the%20continuance%20of%20the%20pregnancy%20would%20involve%20a%20risk%20to%20the%20life%20of%20the%20pregnant%20woman%20or%20of%20grave%20injury%20to%20her%20physical%20or%20mental%20health%3B%20or (last visited 19th June 2024).
[5] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123985596/#:~:text=Women%20eligible%20for,be%20seriously%20handicapped (last visited 19th June 2024).
[6] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123985596/#:~:text=introduced%20a%20major%20change%20in%20Section%203%20of%20the%20MTP%20Act%20by%20extending%20the%20upper%20limit%20for%20permissible%20termination%20of%20pregnancy%20from%20twenty%20weeks%20to%20twenty%2Dfour%20weeks. (last visited 19th June 2024).