X VS The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (2022)

PARTIES:     TYPE OF CASE:	Appellant: X  Respondents: The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Civil Appeal No 5802 of 2022 SLP (C) No 12612 of 2022
COURT:	THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DATE:	September 29, 2022
BENCH:	J. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. A S Bopanna & J. J B Pardiwala
ADVOCATES ON BEHALF:	Petitioner: Advocate Dr Amit Mishra Respondents: Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General

BACKGROUND OF THE INSTANT CASE:

• A 25-year-old woman named X [Herein after referred to as the ‘appellant’] from Manipur residing in New Delhi filed a writ petition with regards to seeking permission for terminating her pregnancy. She was a 22-week intrauterine pregnant which she got confirmed through an ultrasound on July 5, 2022.
• The women affirmed that she’s unmarried and got pregnant as a result of a consensual sexual intercourse with the man who later refused to get married, thus she claimed that due to fear of social stigma and harassment, orthodox societal culture and preconceived stereotypical notions regarding an unmarried woman being pregnant, it would be detrimental for her mental health, if she continues her pregnancy and gave birth to a child.
• She further asserted, the fact that she lives with her four siblings being eldest among all of them and her agriculturist parents, because of the lack of economic stability, family issues and social taboo and stigma, she is not in a condition to nourish and nurture the child.
• The appellant sought the Permission to terminate her pregnancy before July 15, 2022 as till this time it would be somewhat around 24 weeks of gestation age.
• She also requested Protection from criminal proceedings or any other Action against her or any registered medical practitioners involved and Inclusion of unmarried women under rule 3 (b) of the MTP, rules, 2021.
• Along with the writ petition a Criminal Miscellaneous Application no. CM Application 30708/2022 was filed seeking an interim relief to terminate the pregnancy while other issues are pending concerning the writ petition.
• The High Court in its order dated 15 th of July 2022, rejected the CM application and the ratio decidendi was that the MTP rules 2021, specifically Rule 3B, which is tailored for married women and specific categories like widows, divorcees and sexual assault victims, etc. does not apply to an unmarried woman being pregnant out of a consensual relationship.
• The court also observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act is also inapplicable which prohibits termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks, the court also stated that the validity of the rule whether violative of Article 14 can only be determined once it is declared ultra vires through this court under this writ.
• The High Court Finally reasoned that Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, is currently in force and court, under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, cannot go beyond its power and thus is bound by existing laws and granting interim relief as of now would be equivalent as issuing the writ.

FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE:

• The present case was an appeal by the way of a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of The Constitution Of India, 1951, appealed on July 21,2022 before the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction of The Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the petitioner sought permission for abortion as per the Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules, 2021, which allows for abortion due to a change in marital status during pregnancy.
• On July 21, 2022, the Apex court allowed the termination after A Medical Board at AIIMS, Delhi, confirmed that the termination could be performed safely and there exists no risk to an appellant’s life.
• Following which, appellant was aborted and the Court took up the case for further consideration, focusing on the interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules and its applicability to unmarried women.

ISSUES RAISED IN THE INSTANT CASE:

• Whether or not a women other than whose married have the rights pertaining to the termination of pregnancy especially under Clause C of Rule 3B in the MTP Rules and Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act?
• In respect of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, is marital rape recognised under Indian law or not?
• Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, does an unmarried woman have a right of reproductive autonomy dignity and privacy?
• Does the MTP, 2021, especially Section 3(2)(b) of the said rules, is violative of right to equality protected under Article 14 of the constitution of India?

CONTENTIONS:

Contentions by the Appellant:

• The Appellant contended that appellant did not wish to continue the pregnancy as she is an unemployed and unmarried woman in the absence of a partner who refused to marry, she is not capable of raising and nourishing a child, as she lacks pecuniary resources and other than her parents whose only source of income is farming, no other member is a source for income in their family of 5 siblings and parents.
• The Appellant further asserted that, because of societal taboo, stereotypes, stigma and harassment an unmarried woman faces, especially if she’s an unmarried single mother, she was not in a proper and right mental state to nurture a child. And compelling her to do so would cause a substantial injury to her both physically and mentally.
• Regarding the constitutionality of the said provision, namely Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination Act, 1971 and Rule 3B of the Medical Termination  Rules , 2021 possess an arbitrary and discriminatory nature as it violates Equal protection of laws enshrined under Article 14 of the constitution of India as the said provisions under Medical termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Rules, 2021 ,by excluding an unmarried women on the ground of status of marriage.

Contentions by the Respondents:

• The primary and foremost contention of respondents was, that, MTP, Act, 1971 and MTP, 2021 does include a single women and unmarried woman, whose in long-term relationships and under Rule 3B(c) of the MTP, RULES ,2021 the phrase “change of marital status” ought to be construed as “change of the status of a relationship” which does include women who are unmarried, single and deserted women;
• Respondents emphasised on “PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION” of the said provisions and argued that When two interpretations of a law are possible, the one that aligns with the overall statutory framework should be chosen. The interpretation of legislation must consider the text, context, and the purpose it aims to fulfill. Additionally, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of a statute should guide its interpretation. They further contended that the literal construction of a statute must be avoided, and purposive interpretation shall be adopted while interpreting legislations, especially when concerned with the advanced needs and evolution of the society.
• Finally, they contented, that the MTP, ACT, 1971 or MTP, RULES, 2021 is not violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India similar to Various other statutes, as they do not discriminate between a married or unmarried or single women. For example, Live-in relationships which under law are equivalent to marital status because women are entitled to maintenance, and a child born out of such relationships have succession rights. And a woman’s rights of bodily integrity and reproductive autonomy under such long-term relationships are protected by virtue of the said Acts.

RATIO – DECIDENDI:

1. RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY & RIGHT TO DIGNITY:
2. The court observed that Reproductive Autonomy is not only limited to just a mere right of having a child but it also includes the Liberty to make decisions about sexual and reproductive health, such as contraception, abortions, and healthcare, etc, without any force or coercion.
3. Court by Referring to K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India[2], observed that the right to privacy and reproductive rights will encompass both physical and mental autonomy and it comes within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Also citing Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration[3], the Supreme Court affirmed that under Article 21 of the Constitution Of India, reproductive autonomy also includes the right to choose whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.
5. Further the Court, referred to, Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[4], and acknowledged that dignity is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. And the court supported the view given in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi[5], that the right to life includes living with dignity and freedom of Self -expression.
6. Further Court noted and addressed that in Navtej Singh Johar[6], the Court recognised that dignity is essential for individuals to fully express their identity.
7. Based on the above reasoning along with other facts and precedents, The court emphasized that the right to dignity, is a core element of Article 21, which includes self-determining choices and If women are forced to continue unwanted pregnancies, they are stripped of their autonomy over their bodies and lives, which undermines their dignity.

• PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3 MTP ACT, 1971 AND SECTION 3(B), MTP, RULES, 2021:
• When interpreting Rule 3B, the court emphasized that where two interpretations of a provision is possible, courts should Favor the interpretation that gives effect to the provision rather than rendering it Void, Basically they emphasized the maxim ‘Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pareat’.
• Giving Rule 3B a restrictive interpretation would make it almost unconstitutional, as it would deny unmarried women the right to access safe and legal abortions thus Courts should prefer an interpretation that supports the constitutionality of the statutory provision and avoid narrow interpretations.

• SECTION 3 (2), MTP ACT, 1971 R.W. SECTION 3(B) OF MTP, RULES IN RESPECT TO ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:
• Excluding unmarried or single women from Rule 3B’s ambit would be discriminatory and violate Article 14, which mandates equality before the law. The law should not create discriminatory or Arbitrary notions.

• MARITAL RAPE AND MTP, ACT,1971:
• Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC removes marital rape from the ambit of rape defined in Section 375 only by legal fiction. Understanding of “rape” within the meaning of the MTP Act and the rules made thereunder to include marital rape will not have the effect of abolishing Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC. Hence, the term rape has to be understood to include marital rape only within the meaning of the MTP Act and all the rules and regulations made thereunder.

INFERENCE:

• The landmark ruling by the Apex Court on September 29, 2022, declared that similar to a married woman, under Section 3(2)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, Read with Rule 3B(c), which deals with categories of women eligible for termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks does include an unmarried woman.
• The Court held that a woman does have the Right of reproductive autonomy irrespective of her marital status, also she alone has the authority over her body and hence have a sole right to decide regarding termination of the pregnancy, thus she also possess Right to privacy.
• The Hon’ble Court also highlighted that in respect of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 197, marital rape is recognised under Indian law.
• The Court highlighted the need to adapt the law as per current societal needs and challenges to promote gender equality and justice. The ruling also addressed issues such as barriers to access, reluctance of health care providers, and intersections between abortion laws and other legal frameworks, advocating for comprehensive reproductive health care reforms.

VIBHOR SHRIVASTAVA, BBALLB (5^TH YEAR), AMITY LAW SCHOOL, GWALIOR, AUMP.

---

[1] 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1321, 2022 INSC 1033.

[2] AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841, 2019 (1) SCC 1, (2018) 12 SCALE 1

[3] AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 235, 2009 (9) SCC 1

[4] AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461, 1973 4 SCC 225

[5] 1981 AIR 746, 1981 SCR (2) 516, AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 746

[6] AIR 2018 SUPREME COURT 4321, AIR 2018 SC (CRI) 1169