OVERVIEW

The Supreme Court of India considered whether an unmarried woman in a consensual relationship could access termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act), beyond twenty weeks and up to twenty-four weeks. The case examined the interpretation of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003. The Court emphasized reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, and equality, observing that unmarried women should not be excluded merely because of their marital status.

Also Read – A mistake of fact is a good defence but a mistake of law is not. Discuss

Facts

  • The petitioner was a permanent resident of Manipur and was stated to be residing in Delhi. She had been in a consensual relationship and discovered her pregnancy in June 2022.
  • An ultrasound scan dated 5 July 2022 revealed a single intrauterine pregnancy of approximately twenty-two weeks. The petitioner stated that her relationship had failed and that she lacked a source of livelihood to raise and nurture a child.
  • She approached the Delhi High Court seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy, protection against coercive or criminal proceedings, and inclusion of unmarried women within Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.
  • On 15 July 2022, the High Court issued notice only on the request concerning the inclusion of unmarried women under Rule 3B. It did not grant the other requested reliefs. The petitioner completed twenty-four weeks of pregnancy on 18 July 2022.

Also Read – Juvenile Justice Act 2015: Key Provisions, Offence Classification and Landmark Cases

Issues

  1. Whether an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship could seek termination of pregnancy between twenty and twenty-four weeks under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, 1971.
  2. Whether Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003, should be interpreted to include unmarried women, particularly under the category of a change in marital status during an ongoing pregnancy.
  3. Whether excluding unmarried women from the benefit of the law violated Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (personal liberty and reproductive autonomy) of the Constitution of India.
  4. She approached the Supreme Court challenging the restrictive interpretation that excluded unmarried women whose pregnancies arose from consensual relationships from the categories eligible for termination up to twenty-four weeks.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court made the following important observations:

A. Interpretation of Section 3 and Rule 3B

Section 3(2)(a) permits termination of pregnancy up to twenty weeks, subject to statutory requirements. Section 3(2)(b) permits termination beyond twenty weeks but not exceeding twenty-four weeks for prescribed categories of women, based on the good-faith opinion of at least two registered medical practitioners regarding the statutory grounds. Rule 3B specifies these categories.

The Court observed that Rule 3B(c), concerning a change of marital status during pregnancy, should receive a purposive rather than restrictive interpretation. The words “widowhood and divorce” need not exhaust the meaning of that category.

B. Legislative intent and the 2021 amendment

The Court noted that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, replaced “husband” with “partner” in Explanation 1 to Section 3(2). This indicated that Parliament intended the law to extend beyond conventional marital relationships. The Court found no reasonable basis to deny unmarried women the same protection available to other eligiblecategories.
C. Constitutional rights

The Court emphasized that reproductive choice, bodily integrity, dignity and personal autonomy form part of Article 21. It referred to Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal to support the protection of reproductive autonomy and personal liberty.

Decision

The Supreme Court entertained the Special Leave Petition and passed an ad interim order. It requested the Director of AIIMS, Delhi, to constitute a Medical Board under Section 3(2D). If the Board concluded that termination could occur without danger to the petitioner’s life, a medical team was directed to carry it out after ascertaining her wishes and obtaining her written consent. The Court also held, prima facie, that she should not be denied the benefit of the statute merely because she was unmarried. The petition was listed for further consideration on 2 August 2022.

Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications