Supreme Court Affirms Right of Unmarried Women to Abort Pregnancies up to 24 Weeks Under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act

Landmark Judgment Interprets MTP Rules Inclusively, Recognizes Marital Rape within MTP Act, and Protects Adolescent Privacy in Abortion Proceedings

In a landmark judgment delivered on September 29, 2022, the Supreme Court of India expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) to explicitly include unmarried, single, or women without partners within the ambit of safe and legal abortion up to twenty-four weeks of pregnancy. The judgment, passed by a bench comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, and J.B. Pardiwala, addressed critical issues surrounding reproductive rights, gender equality, and medical ethics in the context of abortion laws in India.

The case originated from a petition filed by an unmarried woman from Manipur residing in New Delhi, who sought permission to terminate her pregnancy at 22 weeks gestation. She argued that her partner had refused to marry her, and continuing the pregnancy would cause grave injury to her mental health due to social stigma and lack of financial means to raise a child alone. The Delhi High Court had earlier declined to grant her permission on the ground that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, which permits abortion up to 24 weeks for specific categories of women, did not include unmarried women.

The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, held that the interpretation of Rule 3B must be purposive and aligned with the object of the MTP Act to enhance access to safe abortions and protect women's reproductive autonomy. The Court observed that excluding unmarried or single women from this category would be discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Significantly, the Court clarified that the term "rape" under Rule 3B includes marital rape for the purposes of the MTP Act, notwithstanding Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. This interpretation is crucial as it recognizes the reality of sexual violence within marriage and ensures that victims have access to safe abortion services without being compelled to bear children resulting from abuse.

Further, the Court emphasized that only the consent of the woman (or her guardian in the case of minors or mentally ill women) is necessary for termination, and registered medical practitioners must refrain from imposing any extra-legal conditions such as family consent or judicial authorization.

In relation to adolescent pregnancies, the Court harmoniously read the MTP Act with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. It held that medical practitioners are exempted from disclosing the identity of minors seeking abortions in any criminal proceedings arising from their mandatory reporting under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. This protection is vital to ensure minors' privacy and encourage safe medical termination without fear of stigma or legal harassment.

The judgment also underscored the constitutional values of reproductive autonomy, dignity, privacy, and equality that underpin the right to abortion. It acknowledged the evolving social realities, including changes in family structures and relationships outside the institution of marriage, and stressed that laws must adapt to these changes to uphold human rights.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court modified the Delhi High Court's order and directed the constitution of a Medical Board at AIIMS to facilitate the safe termination of the pregnancy, which was carried out successfully. The Court disposed of the appeal with detailed reasons affirming inclusive access to abortion services.

This judgment marks a significant step towards recognizing and protecting the reproductive rights of all women, regardless of marital status, and addresses barriers that unmarried women face due to societal stigma and restrictive interpretations of the law. It reinforces the primacy of a woman's choice and bodily autonomy in reproductive decisions, consistent with constitutional guarantees and India's international human rights obligations.

Statutory provisions

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Section 3(2)(b), Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 Rule 3B(a), 3B(b), 3B(c), 3B(d), Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 375 Exception 2, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 19(1), Section 21, Constitution of India Articles 14, 21, 51

X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2041731