Summary
An unmarried woman whose consensual relationship had ended sought to terminate a pregnancy of more than twenty weeks. The Delhi High Court refused interim relief because Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, which lists the categories eligible for termination up to twenty-four weeks, does not include unmarried women. By an ad interim order, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had read Rule 3B too restrictively. By replacing 'married woman' with 'any woman' and 'husband' with 'partner' in 2021, Parliament showed that the Act is not confined to marriage. Reproductive choice is part of Article 21, and the marital distinction has no nexus with the Act's purpose. Judicial delay should not prejudice her. AIIMS was asked to form a Medical Board and to terminate the pregnancy if it was safe.
Issues
- Whether, prima facie, an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship can seek termination between twenty and twenty-four weeks under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3B of the MTP Rules.
- Whether interim relief should be granted although the petitioner had passed twenty-four weeks while her case was pending.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(2)(b), Explanation 1 and Section 3(2D), Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971The amendment by Act 8 of 2021 refers to 'any woman or her partner', showing that the beneficial provisions are not confined to married women. Section 3(2D) provides for the Medical Board that the Court asked AIIMS to constitute. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 22)
- Rule 3B(c), Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003'Change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy' is to be read purposively. The words 'widowhood and divorce' in brackets are not exhaustive, and the High Court's narrow reading was prima facie unduly restrictive. (¶¶ 11, 12, 14, 18)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaA woman's reproductive choice, bodily integrity and autonomy are part of personal liberty and privacy (Suchita Srivastava, Puttaswamy). Denying an unmarried woman a safe abortion violates that autonomy. (¶¶ 16, 19, 20)
Held
- Rule 3B(c), on change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy, must be read purposively. The words 'widowhood and divorce' do not exhaust the category, so the High Court's reading was prima facie unduly restrictive. (¶ 14)
- By replacing 'married woman' with 'any woman' and 'husband' with 'partner' in 2021, Parliament showed that it did not intend to confine the Act to matrimonial relationships. The Act recognises a woman's reproductive choice and bodily autonomy without distinguishing between married and unmarried women. Rule 3B leaves a gap, and there is no basis to deny unmarried women a choice that is available to the other categories. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Reproductive choice is an inseparable part of personal liberty under Article 21, and denying an unmarried woman a safe abortion violates her autonomy and freedom. The distinction between married and unmarried women has no nexus with the object of the Act, so prima facie the petitioner falls within the statute. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- The petitioner approached the High Court before completing twenty-four weeks, and the delay in the judicial process cannot work to her prejudice. The constitutional challenge to Rule 3B remains pending before the High Court, and this order is ad interim. (¶¶ 13, 21, 22)
Result
Special leave petition entertained; ad interim directions issued. The Director of AIIMS, Delhi was asked to constitute a Medical Board under Section 3(2D) on 22.07.2022. If the Board finds the termination safe, AIIMS doctors are to perform it after again ascertaining the petitioner's wishes and obtaining her written consent. A report is due within a week, and the matter is listed on 02.08.2022. The High Court's refusal of interim relief was modified accordingly.