Welfare Department & Ors.
Bench: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, A. S. Bopanna, B. Pardiwala,
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 502 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12612 of 2022)
Appellant: Mrs. X
Respondent: The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.
Appellant’s advocate: Dr Amit Mishra
Court: Supreme court of India
Jurisdiction: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India
Judgement Date: 29th September, 2022
X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department & Ors.
1
centred
on the rights of unmarried women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act,
2021.
- A 25-year-old woman, born in Manipur, approached the Delhi High Court seeking
approval to terminate her pregnancy before reaching the 24 weeks threshold. - The pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship, but her partner’s unwillingness
to marry her at the brink of the relationship, along with the “public criticism and
pressure” from society aimed at single parents, especially single mothers, made her
consider terminating the pregnancy. - Additionally, she asserted that lacking any means of livelihood and lacking mental
readiness to care for and raise a child were factors contributing to her decision. She
emphasized that an unwanted pregnancy posed a potential threat to her mental well-
being.
1 X v. Health & Family Welfare Department, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 905
- The woman relied on Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules,
which permits termination between 20-24 weeks under the MTP Act. - Specifically, she cited Rule 3B(c), which allows termination due to a “change of marital
status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce).” - The Delhi High Court interpreted Rule 3B(c) to be applicable solely to married women,
excluding unmarried women from its provisions. - Consequently, the court denied permission for the termination procedure based on this
interpretation. - Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, the woman appealed to the Supreme Court,
seeking a review and reversal of the interpretation that limited the application of Rule
3B(c) to married women. - The appeal aimed to establish the right of unmarried women to seek termination under
Rule 3B(c) in cases of significant changes in circumstances during pregnancy.
- ISSUES RAISED
- Whether unmarried women fall within the purview of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules,
permitting the termination of a pregnancy between 20-24 weeks. - Whether denying single women the right to make reproductive choices as per Rule 3B
constitutes a violation of Article 142
of the Constitution of India
.
- CONTENTION
Petitioner’s side
Dr Amit Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions:
- The Appellant is the oldest among five siblings, and her parents work as farmers. She
became pregnant as a result of a consensual relationship but wishes to end the
pregnancy because her partner declined to marry her at the last stage. - The petitioner mentioned that she has a BA degree and, without any means of
supporting herself, she would face challenges in providing for and caring for a child.
2
INDIA CONST. art 14.
- Moreover, she wasn’t emotionally ready to raise a child on her own, fearing it would
negatively impact her both physically and mentally. The possibility of facing societal
judgment as an unmarried mother also weighed heavily on her mind. - Dr Mishra contended that Section 3(2)(b)3
of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP
Rules displayed arbitrariness and discrimination by excluding unmarried women. He
argued that such provisions violated Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution
by discriminating against women based on their marital status.
Respondent’s side
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned senior counsel and Additional Solicitor General presented
the following arguments to support the assertion that Rule 3B(c) applies to unmarried or
single women engaged in long-term relationships.
- Understanding and interpreting the law should reflect the statute’s intended purpose,
accounting for societal changes, and subordinate legislations should adhere to the
statutory scheme. - Live-in relationships are similar to marital relationships because, in both scenarios,
the woman is entitled to receive maintenance. - The expression “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) should be construed as
“change in relationship status” to include unmarried or single women, as well as
women who are not divorced but are separated or deserted.
- RATIONALE
In the case of X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors., the Supreme Court took a forward-thinking approach by adopting a
purposive interpretation rather than a restrictive one. It represents a progressive stance,
indicating a willingness to evolve legal interpretations in alignment with contemporary values
and social perspectives.
3 The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3(2)(b), no. 34, Acts of Parliament.
Purposive Interpretation
The principle of purposive interpretation is crucial in understanding statutes, aiming to uncover
the legislative intent and true legal meaning. This involves analysing the language used to grasp
the purpose, objective, and remedy sought by the legislature. When there are multiple
interpretations possible, the one that aligns with the legislation’s goal should be preferred.
The MTP Act, enacted to facilitate safe and legal medical abortions, reflects legislative
intentions geared toward health and humanitarianism. As a beneficial law, both the MTP Act
and its rules should be interpreted in a way that aligns with the legislative goal of providing
women access to secure abortion services offered by qualified medical professionals.
Gap in Law
The basic rule of understanding laws is that the words in a statute should be considered in their
full context and in their regular sense, fitting well with the overall plan of the law and what the
lawmakers intended. When Parliament amended the MTP Act4
in 2021 through Act 85
, the goal
was to encompass unmarried and single women. This intention is clear as they replaced the
phrase ‘married woman’ with ‘any woman,’ and ‘husband’ with ‘partner’ in Explanation I of
Section 3(2) of the Act.
However, a loophole in the law is apparent: although Section 3 extends beyond traditional
marital relationships, Rule 3B in the MTP Rules doesn’t address scenarios with unmarried
women. Instead, it acknowledges various groups of women like divorcees, widows, minors,
disabled and mentally ill women, and survivors of sexual assault or rape. There’s no valid
reason to withhold the right of unmarried women to medically terminate a pregnancy when that
choice is granted to other groups of women.
Equal Legal Benefits for Married and Unmarried Women
If Rule 3B(c) is understood to only benefit married women, it would reinforce the
misconception that only married women engage in sexual activity, suggesting that legal
advantages should be limited to them. This artificial distinction between married and unmarried
4 The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, no. 34, Acts of Parliament.
5 The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, no.8, Acts of Parliament.
women raises constitutional concerns, as it contradicts the principle that legal benefits should
be equally available to both groups, regardless of marital status. Such an interpretation goes
against the constitutional commitment to fairness and equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the
Constitution. According to Article 14, the state must avoid denying any person equality before
the law or equal protection of laws. Withholding the right to a safe and legal abortion from an
unmarried woman infringes upon her personal autonomy and freedom.
Constitutional Recognition of Reproductive Rights
A woman’s decision to have children or not is recognised by the court in Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors6
as part of her right to privacy and her
right to live with dignity under Article 217
of the Constitution. Forcing a woman to carry out a
pregnancy when she chooses not to would violate her right to bodily autonomy, intensify her
emotional suffering, and have a negative impact on her mental health. Moreover, in the case of
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration8
, the court explicitly acknowledged the
concept of reproductive autonomy.
- DEFECTS OF LAW
However, a drawback in the MTP Act lies in the complicated and time-consuming process of
obtaining approval from Medical Boards for late-term abortions (20-24 weeks). This
procedural requirement adds an extra layer of bureaucracy, causing significant delays and
heightened stress for women seeking timely medical intervention. The extended evaluation
period may be particularly problematic in urgent cases where there are substantial health risks
for the woman or foetal abnormalities that demand swift attention. - INFERENCE
This judgment marks a ground-breaking development in the protection of reproductive and
decisional autonomy of women. By affirming reproductive rights for all women, regardless of
6 K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
7
INDIA CONST. art 21.
8
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admn. (2009) 9 SCC 1.
marital status, the ruling challenges and dismantles existing distinctions between single and
married women concerning abortion.
Moreover, it also authorized the termination of pregnancies up to 24 weeks for specific groups
of women including survivors of rape and incest, women with disabilities, and underage
individuals. It recognizes the unique challenges and needs of women in diverse situations,
ensuring their access to reproductive choices within an extended timeframe.
~ Prachi Mehta
(Student of Symbiosis Law School, Pune)