CASE SUMMARY: X V PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER

CASE DETAILS

• FULL CASE NAME: X V PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER.
• CITATION: 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 1321
• COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5802 OF 2022, ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 12612 OF 2022.
• DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 29 SEPTEMBER 2022.

INTRODUCTION

This Case involves a contention pertaining to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as well as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules. It concerned a provision which excluded unmarried women from the right to undergo an abortion. This Case answers the question as to whether a statute can provide a benefit to married women to the exclusion of unmarried women and it also employs the purposive interpretation of Statutes to meet changing norms. 

FACTS

This case dealt with the rights of unmarried women under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2021 (MTP Act). This case considered section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act which allows for the termination of a pregnancy between 20-24 weeks, and Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules (MTP Rules), which lays down circumstances in which such an abortion may be obtained. A 25-year-old woman approached the High Court of Delhi, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy in the 23rd week. The appellant stated that the pregnancy had arisen out of a consensual relationship, however, her partner had refused to marry her. She did not want to carry the pregnancy to term since she was wary of the “social stigma and harassment” pertaining to unmarried single parents, especially women. The appellant sought permission to terminate her pregnancy under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules which allows for the termination of a pregnancy between 20-24 weeks under the MTP Act. Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules allows for the termination of pregnancy due to “change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)”. The High Court of Delhi held that this rule was only applicable to married women, and that an unmarried woman could not be considered under this provision. The court denied the procedure and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.[1]

 ISSUES

• Whether Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules are applicable to unmarried women?
• Whether the exclusion of unmarried women from the provision of these rules is in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
• Whether the exclusion of unmarried women from the provision of these rules is in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT:

1. The appellant was an unmarried woman whose partner had refused to marry her. She did not wish to continue the pregnancy and have the child out of wedlock as she lacked the financial resources to do so. She was not employed, and her parents were farmers;
2. She was also not mentally prepared to raise a child by herself. If she was compelled to do so, it would cause grave injury to her physical and mental health. The appellant was not prepared to face the social stigma surrounding unwed mothers;
3. Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules are arbitrary and discriminatory because they exclude unmarried women from their ambit. They discriminate against women on the grounds of marital status, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.[2]

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENTS:

1. The interpretation of legislation must be guided by the text and context of a statute as well as the object it seeks to achieve. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of a statute must also guide its interpretation; 
2. Modern legislations ought to be read in view of the evolution of society from the time of enactment. The literal construction of beneficial legislations must be avoided, and they ought to be given a purposive interpretation;
3. A subordinate legislation should give effect to the statute it is enacted under. If two constructions are possible, the interpretation in consonance with the statutory scheme ought to be adopted;
4. The term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) ought to be interpreted as “change in the status of a relationship” to include unmarried or single women as well as women who are not divorced but are separated or have been deserted;
5. “Live-in relationships” are equivalent to marital relationships because, in both types of relationships, the woman is entitled to maintenance. Further, the children born out of such a relationship are vested with the right of succession. Various national legislations, including the MTP Act, do not make a distinction between married women and unmarried or single women;
6. Women enjoy the right to bodily integrity and autonomy, as well as reproductive rights. They are entitled to exercise decisional autonomy.[3]

JUDGEMENT AND REASONING OF THE COURT

The Apex Court bench comprising Judges D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S. Bopanna, and J.B. Pardiwala opined that the Delhi High Court’s understanding of the legislation was limited in scope and overly restrictive and narrow. In response to the petitioner’s request, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order granting the 25-year-old woman permission to undergo an abortion, subject to the evaluation of a medical board established by AIIMS Delhi. The bench acknowledged the legislative amendment substituting the term “husband” with “partner” and emphasised the need for a purposive interpretation. It asserted that it is crucial to interpret the law in light of evolving societal norms. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, enacted in 1971, primarily focused on married women, but in response to changing values, the legislation had to adapt to accommodate legally non-traditional family situations. With this ruling, the Supreme Court declared the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules (MTPR) unconstitutional for excluding unmarried women in live-in relationships who become pregnant. The central issue before the highest court was whether this exclusion, as outlined in Rule 3B of MTPR, was justified. Justice Chandrachud, presiding over the case, argued that extending the benefits of MTPR exclusively to married women perpetuated the societal stereotype that sexual activity was confined to married individuals. The court affirmed that unmarried women possess the same reproductive autonomy rights as their married counterparts. The Supreme Court, in its judgement, held that women have the right to reproductive decisional autonomy. ‘Reproductive autonomy’ simply means ‘to be able to make decisions on your own concerning contraceptive use, pregnancy and childbearing’. It is a vast spectrum with many rights under its umbrella, like the right to education and information on contraception and sexual health, the right to decide what type of contraceptives to use, the right to safe and legal abortion, etc. All these rights should be exercised freely without any coercion. Hence, women should be able to have the right to choose whether to undergo abortion or not without any third-party influence.[4]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

This Case extends the right to reproductive and bodily autonomy to unmarried women. It recognises the fact that a woman should be free to make decisions concerning their reproductive well-being irrespective of her marital status and any statutory provision which states otherwise is unconstitutional as it contravenes articles 14 and 21 of the Indian constitution which provide for equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty respectively. Thus, a legislative provision that precludes an unmarried woman from having an abortion is discriminatory and infringes upon her personal liberty.

Furthermore, the Court also employed a purposive interpretation of the statute to meet changing societal norms. It took cognizance of the fact that there are certain modern or atypical forms of familial relationships and live-in relationships are equivalent to marital relationships. It asserted that while the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was primarily focused on married women, it has to respond to contemporary social realities and recognise non-traditional family situations.

This case signifies the transcendence from the institution of marriage as a source of rights because no woman should be precluded from enjoying a particular benefit simply because she is unmarried, thus ensuring that both married women and their unmarried counterparts enjoy the same reproductive rights and that no statutory provision can accord benefits exclusively to married women.

CONCLUSION

The ruling of the Court in this case highlights the fact that both married and unmarried women are equal under the law and thus should be accorded the same rights and benefits and a legislative provision which has a limited application to only married women is inconsistent with the provisions of the Indian constitution. The Court also applied a less literal interpretation of the statute in question to incorporate contemporary familial relationships underscoring the fact that statutory provisions ought to adapt to evolving societal norms.

REFERENCES

[1] X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi and Another (Privacy Law Library), https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org, accessed 25 August, 2026.

[2]Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid