CASE SUMMARY: X vs PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF NCT DELHI & ANR

Name Of the Case	X principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT Delhi & Anr
Citation	Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 12612 of 2022
Case Number	Civil Appeal No.502 of 2022(arising out of SLP (c) No. 12612 of 2022)
Court	Supreme Court of India
Petitioner	Mrs. X
Respondent	Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT Delhi
Bench	Justice Dr. Dhananjaya, Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice B. Pardiwala
Date Of Judgement	September 29, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Women’s rights have been a topic of debate for many years. The subject of women’s reproductive rights is one such area of discussion. Women’s reproductive rights refer to the capacity to make rational choices regarding their reproductive health, including whether or not to have children, when to have them, and how many. The right of women to get abortions has been a contentious issue in this area in particular for many years.

The Supreme Court Of India gave a landmark judgement in X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi’. In This Case, the Supreme Court referred to the Right to abortion of pregnancy for unmarried women. According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, RULE 3B, unmarried women can also terminate their pregnancy. This expanded the scope of Rule 3B of the MTP rules to include unmarried women and survivors of marital rape as candidates for abortions during pregnancy tenure between 20 and 24 weeks. Also, this rule violates Article 14 which guarantees equality before the law, and Article 21 which guarantees the Right to life, of the Indian Constitution. In Payal Sharma v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Agra, AIR 2001 All 254 the Allahabad High Court held that a woman can live according to her wishes and marry or live with any guy as she wishes. In the current circumstance, the court gave an unmarried woman permission to end a consensual relationship based on a 24-week pregnancy. In this case, unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion or pregnancy in the term of a consensual relationship. Only after the medical board established by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) concluded that the pregnancy could be terminated without creating danger to the petitioner’s life did the Supreme Court, by order dated July 21, 2022, modify the high court’s decision and authorize the petitioner to end her pregnancy.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner x, who was born in Manipur, then resides permanently in Delhi. She was a 25-year-old B.A. graduate who had 4 siblings and their parents were farmers. She was in a consensual relationship and then that relationship was terminated. Petitioner came to know that she was 22 weeks pregnant on 5th July 2022. Due to public criticism and pressure situation in society towards unmarried single parents and because “partner had refused to marry her at the last stage,” she wishes to end her pregnancy.[1]

Her demands were:

Before July 15, 2022, a doctor must grant permission or a licensed private hospital. Since pregnancy will have progressed to week 24 by July 15, 2022, we kindly ask for your consideration in passing the order by that date. After the limitation time had passed, the order could not be used.

To pass the resolution, ordering the state to cover unmarried women for up to 24 weeks under section 3(2) clause (b) of the MTP Act and rule 3b of the medical termination of pregnancy rule for the cessation of pregnancy.

The petitioner had filed a writ petition in Delhi High Court praying the court to:

1. a) Permit her to terminate the pregnancy.
2. b) Restrain the respondent from taking any coercive action.

The High Court of Delhi, However, rejected the petitioner’s request for permission to end her pregnancy and to stop the respondents from taking any coercive action. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 did not apply to the petitioner’s case since she was not coerced into the procedure Aspect. The petitioner filed an appeal with the honorable Supreme Court after not being satisfied with the Delhi High Court’s decision.

LEGAL ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT

1. Whether the rule is violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
2. Whether interpretation of MTP rules, 2003 read with the MTP act, 1971?
3. Whether the petitioner entitled to relief of termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act & Rules?
4. Whether section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita violated by this suit?
5. Whether the Article 21 of the constitution violate this rule?

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

The Constitution of India

14. Equality before law.-the state shall not deny to any person equality before the law of the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.[2]
15. This article provides Protection of life and personal liberty which elaborately says that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.[3]

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

125. ACT ENDANGERING LIFE OR PERSONAL SAFETY OF OTHERS.[4]
126. Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with a fine which may extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but-

(a) Where hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both;

(b) Where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. Of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement

Medical Termination Act, 1971

3[5]. – when pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners

3(2)(b) – (i) the continuances of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or

(ii) There is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Rule 3B[6]:

3B. This Rule says that women are eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks.- the following categories of women shall be considered eligible for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of sub-section (2) section 3 of the act, for a period of up to twenty-four weeks, namely:

(a) Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest;

(b) Minors

(c) Change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy

(d) Women with physical disabilities (disabilities Act, 2016)

(e) Mentally ill women including mental retardation;

(f) The fetal malformation that has a substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and

(g) Women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergencies as may be declared by the government.

CONTENTION

PETITIONER

The petitioner submitted that the provisions of section 3(2) (b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and rule 3b of MTP rules were presented as part of their submission. The petitioner further submitted that there is a violation of article14 and 21 of the constitution of India.

The petitioner, an unmarried woman, was in a situation where she was refused marriage by her mate. She was reluctant to continue the pregnancy to term and give birth to a child outside of marriage because of her financial situation and lack of a job.

Dr. Mishra claimed that section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and rule 3b of the MTP rules were unjustified and discriminatory. Since unmarried women were specifically left out, Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which ensures equality before the law, was broken by this discrimination based on marital status aspects.

An unmarried woman should be given the right to determine her abortion.[7]

RESPONDENT

The respondent expresses that unmarried or single women who are in relationships are covered by rule 3B(c) of the medical termination of pregnancy Rules.

In the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act section 3b(c) defines “change of marital status” should be read as “change in the status of a relationship,” which would surround women who are unmarried or single as well as those who are not divorced but are separated or have been abandoned.

Live-in Relationship is equal to marriage because the women are also entitled to maintenance in both situations.it is significant to remember that the number of national laws, such as the MTP Act, do not distinguish between unmarried and married or single women.

Women are entitled to personal integrity, self-determination, also the right to bear children, and the Right to decide how many children to give. They have the right to use their decision-making freedom however they see fit.

HOLDING

In response to the woman’s petition. The supreme court issued an interim order permitting her to terminate the pregnancy, subject to the judgement of the All India Institute of Medical Science Delhi Established Medical Board.

The supreme court bench made up of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, A.S Bopanna, and J.B. Pardiwala believed that the Delhi High Court’s interpretation of the laws was too narrow.

The bench acknowledged the amendment that changed the word “husband” to “partner” because it believed there must be a purposeful interpretation. The court stated that it is essential to interpret the law in light of shifting social norms. The MTP Act came into effect in 1971 and focused mostly on married women. Still, as societal values have changed, the legislation has had to change to reflect legally non-traditional family situations.

The Supreme Court declared the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules unconstitutional in excluding unmarried women who become pregnant through live-in relationships. Whether this exclusion under Rule 3B of MTP was legitimate was the question before the highest court. Extending the benefits of MTP to married women would support the social stereotype that only married women engage in sexual activity, according to Justice Chandrachud, who presides over the case.

The purpose of MTP Act section 3(2)(b) read with Rule 3B is to permit abortions between twenty-two and twenty-four weeks that are no longer desired due to a change in the women’s marital circumstances. If Rule 3B were to be interpreted strictly to apply to married women alone, this would constitute discrimination against unmarried women and would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court held that unmarried women have equal rights under the right to reproductive autonomy to married women.

No discrimination is permissible based on Marital status under the MTP Act 1971 and MTP Rules 2003, particularly after the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act.[8]

RATIO DECIDENDI

The Judgement grants three important principles:

It recognizes the right of unmarried women to avail abortion up to 24 weeks. It says that there is no rationale in treating unmarried women and married women with the right to abortion on a different footing.

It also enhances the meaning of marital rape, solely for the right to abortion under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules in conformity with Article 21.

It protects the interest of minor girl children by mandating the medical practitioners.[9]

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

In this case, X vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT. In the case of NCT OF DELHI & ANR, the Supreme Court opted for a purposive interpretation rather than a restrictive one. The court’s progressive perspective renders this ruling historic. Article 21 grants equal rights to married and unmarried women concerning their choice to have children or not.

The court broadly defined “mental health” as encompassing more than just the absence of mental impairment or illness. The court referenced Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, stating that an unwanted pregnancy can be considered detrimental to mental health. The court also observed the following significant points: there was no acknowledgment that a man rapes an unmarried woman differently than when he rapes a married woman in the presence of her spouse, or that a husband could not perpetrate the crime of rape against his wife. The definition of ‘rape’ in Rule 3B of the MTP Act has been determined to include ‘marital rape’ as well. Thus, this ruling represents a significant milestone in recognizing women’s rights to their bodily and reproductive independence.

 

REFERENCES

[1] Dr. J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (60th ed. 2023).

[2] The Constitution of India 1950, Art 14

[3] The Constitution of India 1950, art 21

[4] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2025, S 125

[5] Medical Termination of pregnancy act 1971. S 3

[6] Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, Rule 3B

[7] Manupatra, Presentation, Manupatra (2025), understanding of right to abortion under indian constitution, Sai Abhipsa Gochhayat https://manupatra.com/roundup/373/articles/presentation.pdf. (last visited Jan.27,2025)

[8] Despite Supreme Court Judgment, Abortion for Unmarried Women after 20 Weeks a Catch-22, The Hindu (Jan. 25, 2025), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/despite-supreme-court-judgment-abortion-for-unmarried-women-after-20-weeks-a-catch-22/article66354052.ece. (last visited Jan.27,2025)

[9] A Brief Note on Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, Legal Service India (Jan. 27, 2025), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/articles/adp_tion.htm. (last visited Jan.27,2025)