Case Summary X. v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Case Citation: 2022 SCC Online SC 1321

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Three-Judge Bench comprising: D.Y. Chandrachud , A.S. Bopanna , J.B. Pardiwala.

Date of Judgment: September 29, 2022

Relevant Statutes /Provisions:

• Constitution of India: Articles 14, 21
• Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 
• Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003

Brief Facts

The Appellant, an unmarried woman aged 25 years, approached the Delhi High Court, seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days. She had stated that the pregnancy had arisen out of a consensual relationship but decided to terminate after changes in her circumstances as her partner refused to marry her. She did not want to carry the pregnancy to term as she was wary of “social stigma and harassment” and unmarried single parents, especially women. Moreover the appellant submitted that in the absence of source of proper livelihood, she is not mentally prepared to “raise and nurture the child as an unmarried mother” and continuation of the unwanted pregnancy would involve a risk of grave and immense injury to her mental health. 

The Appellant sought permission to terminate her pregnancy in terms of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 which allows termination of pregnancy between 20-24 weeks due to “change in the marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)”. The Delhi High Court denied relief, holding that under the MTP Act, 1971 (prior to amendment), termination beyond 20 weeks was applicable to married women and did not include unmarried women and disposed the appeal.

Aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Supreme Court through SLP (Special Leave Petition), contending that denying her the right to terminate amounted to discrimination and a violation of her fundamental rights.

Issues Involved

1. Whether unmarried women are entitled to seek termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks under the MTP (Amendment) Act, 2021?
2. Whether excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether reproductive autonomy and decisional freedom form part of the right to life and privacy?

Arguments

Appellants Arguments:

1. Violation of Equality (Article 14): The petitioner argued that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules treated unmarried women unfairly. The Rule allowed termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks only for certain categories of women, such as married women, rape survivors, minors, and women with disabilities. By leaving unmarried women out of this list, the Rule created an unreasonable classification. This meant that two women with the same medical or personal circumstances were treated differently only because one was married and the other was not. Such discrimination, the petitioner claimed, directly violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.
2. Right to Privacy and Autonomy (Article 21): The petitioner stressed that reproductive choices fall within a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and personal liberty under Article 21. Forcing an unmarried woman to continue a pregnancy against her will not only affects her body but also her mental health and future. It takes away her right to make intimate decisions about her life and body. The petitioner argued that every woman, regardless of her marital status, must have the autonomy to decide whether or not to continue a pregnancy.
3. Legislative Intent: It was also pointed out that the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act aimed to make abortion laws more inclusive and progressive. The Amendment itself did not restrict benefits to married women—it used the neutral word “woman.”.
4. Mental Health Grounds: The petitioner further argued that an unwanted pregnancy has a deep impact on a woman’s mental and emotional well-being. Being forced to carry a pregnancy she does not want can cause stress, anxiety, depression, and trauma. The MTP Act itself recognizes mental health as a valid ground for termination of pregnancy. Hence, denying unmarried women access to abortion beyond 20 weeks ignores the serious mental health consequences they may suffer.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Statutory Limitations: The government argued that the law itself placed certain limits on who could seek termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks. Rule 3B of the MTP Rules specifically listed the categories of women who could access this benefit—such as survivors of rape, minors, married women, differently abled women, and others. Since the Rule did not mention unmarried women, the State claimed that the exclusion was intentional and binding. The authorities argued that they were simply applying the law as written, and therefore, they could not extend the benefit to someone outside the listed categories.
2. Judicial Overreach: The State further contended that if the Court allowed unmarried women to be included under Rule 3B, it would effectively amount to rewriting the law. Making new categories or expanding the existing ones was the role of the legislature, not the judiciary. The government argued that the Court’s role was limited to interpreting the law, not creating or amending it. Any change to include unmarried women, they said, had to come through Parliament or official rule-making, not through a judicial order.
3. Fetal Rights: The State also highlighted that the interests of the unborn child had to be taken into account. Allowing termination after 20 weeks was a serious matter because the fetus had developed significantly by that stage. Therefore, the law had created a careful balance between protecting the rights of the woman and safeguarding the potential life of the fetus. According to the government, expanding the scope of Rule 3B without careful legislative debate could upset this balance and compromise the protection of fetal life.

Judgment

The Supreme Court decided in favor of the petitioner and permitted her to terminate the pregnancy. The Court held that the law must be read in a way that protects women’s rights and does not unfairly exclude certain groups.

The Court clarified that the phrase “woman and her partner” under Rule 3B could not be limited only to married couples. Using a narrow interpretation would defeat the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, which was designed to expand access and provide relief to women in need. Therefore, unmarried women also fall within the protection of the law.

The judgment strongly reaffirmed that reproductive choices form an essential part of a woman’s right to privacy, dignity, and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy would directly interfere with her autonomy and personal freedom.

The Court also emphasized the principle of equality. It held that excluding unmarried women while extending the benefit to married women would amount to creating an artificial and unreasonable distinction. Such unequal treatment would be contrary to Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.

In addition, the Court recognized that an unwanted pregnancy has a serious impact on a woman’s mental health. Mental health is an important ground under the MTP Act, and it cannot be ignored simply because the woman is unmarried. Protecting mental well-being was considered equally important as protecting physical health.

Lastly, the Court observed that when dealing with welfare legislation, judges should adopt an inclusive and purposive approach. Instead of interpreting the law narrowly, the Court must ensure that the spirit of the legislation—protecting women’s rights and dignity—is fully realized.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the right to make decisions about reproduction is an important part of Article 21. This includes a woman’s freedom to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, which is linked to her dignity, privacy, and personal liberty.

It further ruled that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules should not be restricted only to married women. To ensure equality, unmarried women must also be allowed to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks, as denying them this right would be discriminatory.

The Court also stated that when interpreting social welfare laws, judges must take a broad and purposive approach. Such laws should be read in a way that protects fundamental rights and promotes constitutional values, rather than in a narrow or restrictive manner.

Obiter Dicta

The Court remarked that making a distinction between married and unmarried women has no constitutional basis. Such a divide only continues harmful stereotypes and cannot be justified under equality principles.

It also made an important observation that, for the purposes of the MTP Act, marital rape should be treated as a form of sexual assault. This recognition allows women in such situations to seek termination of pregnancy under the law.

The judgment further highlighted that women’s rights cannot be controlled by patriarchal ideas of family or morality. Personal autonomy and dignity must take priority over outdated social notions.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy up to 24 weeks. It ruled that the right to safe abortion cannot be denied to a woman only because she is unmarried. Marital status has no bearing on a woman’s right to exercise control over her reproductive choices.

The Court further expanded the meaning of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules to ensure that unmarried women are also covered within its scope. This interpretation brought them at par with married women and other categories mentioned in the law, ensuring equal access to safe abortion services.

Detailed Analysis (Extended Discussion)

This case marks a significant shift in Indian jurisprudence on reproductive rights. By extending the protection of the MTP Act to unmarried women, the Court dismantled discriminatory distinctions based on marital status. The judgment also linked ‘privacy, dignity, equality, and bodily autonomy’ with reproductive choice, building upon earlier decisions like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).

The Court’s recognition of marital rape as a valid ground for abortion underlines its progressive approach. Importantly, the decision placed women’s agency at the center of reproductive rights jurisprudence, aligning Indian law with global human rights standards.

The ruling ensures that safe and legal abortion is accessible to all women, irrespective of marital status, thereby protecting health, dignity, and equality. It sets a precedent for future challenges on reproductive rights and gender justice in India.