X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Citation: (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1321

Commonly Known As: The Unmarried Woman’s Right to Abortion Case (2022)

COURT NAME & BENCH

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench Composition:

• Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
• Hon’ble Ms. Justice Hima Kohli
• Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.S. Narasimha

A three-judge Bench heard the case as it raised significant constitutional questions,  particularly concerning a woman’s reproductive autonomy, the scope and application of the  Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), and the interpretation of  fundamental rights related to dignity, privacy, and decisional autonomy.

Judgment Delivered On: 29 September 2022

PARTIES INVOLVED

Petitioner:

Ms. X (identity withheld to maintain confidentiality)

Respondents:

1. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi 2. Union of India

The petitioner was an unmarried adult woman who approached the Supreme Court seeking  permission for termination of her pregnancy between 20–24 weeks under the Medical Termination  of Pregnancy Act.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner, a 25-year-old unmarried woman, conceived a child as a result of a consensual  relationship. However, during the course of the pregnancy, the relationship broke down, and the  petitioner found herself abandoned and unsupported. Faced with severe emotional distress,  financial vulnerability, and social uncertainty, she decided that continuing with the pregnancy  would cause grave injury to her mental and psychological well-being.

When she approached a registered medical practitioner to seek termination of her pregnancy, she  was informed that the gestation period had already crossed the 20-week mark. According to the  Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, termination beyond 20 weeks and  up to 24 weeks is permitted only for certain specified categories of women mentioned under Rule  3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2021).

These categories included:

• Minors
• Survivors of sexual assault or rape
• Widows and divorced women
• Women with physical disabilities
• Mentally ill women
• Cases of substantial foetal abnormality
• Women facing a “change in marital status during the ongoing pregnancy.”

However, an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship was  not specifically mentioned in the list of eligible categories. On this technical ground, the medical  authorities refused to carry out the termination.

Aggrieved by the refusal, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that excluding  unmarried women from the scope of Rule 3B was unreasonable, discriminatory, and a violation of  her fundamental rights. However, the High Court adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the  Rule and dismissed her petition, stating that the petitioner did not fall within any of the categories  specifically mentioned under the law.

Having no other effective remedy left, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India by  filing a Special Leave Petition, seeking relief and challenging the constitutional validity of such  an exclusion from the scope of the law.

ISSUES RAISED

The key constitutional and legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Whether the exclusion of unmarried women from the scope of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules violates Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution.
2. Whether the use of marital status as a criterion for accessing termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks is reasonable or discriminatory.
3. Whether an unmarried woman has the same right as a married woman to exercise reproductive autonomy under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
4. Whether the expression “change in marital status during the ongoing pregnancy” can be interpreted to include the breakdown of a non-marital, consensual relationship.
5. Whether the denial of abortion access amounts to a violation of a woman’s dignity, privacy, and bodily integrity.

ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER

1. The petitioner argued that marital status is not a valid classification for deciding who can or cannot exercise reproductive rights. Any such distinction is artificial, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
2. She contended that forcing her to carry the pregnancy to term would subject her to grave mental anguish, social stigma, and economic hardship, clearly amounting to a violation of her right to life with dignity under Article 21.
3. The petitioner relied on the landmark decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) to assert that reproductive choice is an inseparable part of the right to privacy.
4. It was submitted that the legislative intent behind the 2021 amendment to the MTP Act was to enlarge, not restrict, access to safe abortion.
5. She further argued that imposing motherhood on an unwilling woman is a form of state controlled compulsion that violates her decisional autonomy.

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS

1. The respondents argued that Rule 3B clearly defined specific categories of women eligible for termination between 20–24 weeks, and the petitioner did not fall within any of them.
2. They contended that courts cannot rewrite legislation and expand the scope of the rule beyond its express wording.
3. It was submitted that the classification made under the Rule was based on objective and policy considerations.
4. The State maintained that the denial was not discriminatory but based on a statutory limitation.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court of India, after closely examining the provisions of the Medical Termination of  Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), along with the constitutional safeguards under Articles  14 and 21, set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and adopted a purposive, progressive, and  constitutionally consistent interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules.

The Court found that the narrow and literal interpretation adopted by the High Court went against  the very purpose of the amendment, which was meant to widen access to safe abortion services  and protect women from unsafe procedures. It clearly stated that there is no reasonable basis  to differentiate between a married and an unmarried woman when it comes to making  decisions about her own body and future.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, speaking for the Bench, emphasised that:

“A woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is an intrinsic part of the right to personal liberty  enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

The Court went on to clarify that the expression “change in marital status during the ongoing  pregnancy” should not be interpreted narrowly to apply only to widowed or divorced women.  Rather, it must be read to include situations where a woman’s relationship, even if it is a non marital one, has broken down, thereby significantly affecting her life circumstances and mental  state.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to undergo medical termination of her  pregnancy, subject to examination and supervision by a duly constituted Medical Board at AIIMS,  Delhi, to ensure that the procedure would not pose any risk to her life.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The binding principle laid down by the Court can be summarised as follows:

1. Marital status has no nexus with reproductive rights. Any classification based solely on whether a woman is married or unmarried is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Reproductive choice is a fundamental right. The right to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is a core component of personal liberty, dignity, and bodily autonomy protected under Article 21.
3. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and its Rules must be understood in the light of constitutional morality, progressive values, and lived social realities, rather than through a mechanical and outdated interpretation.
4. By excluding unmarried women, Rule 3B had the potential to perpetuate discrimination and patriarchal control over women’s bodies, which the Constitution does not permit.

In essence, the Supreme Court made it clear that a woman does not need to be married or seek  permission through marriage to exercise autonomy over her own body.

OBITER DICTA

Beyond the binding ratio, the Court made several powerful observations which, although not part  of the direct holding, carry immense influence on future legal developments:

1. On Bodily Autonomy:

“The decision to carry a pregnancy to term or to terminate it is a deeply personal one, and it must  lie solely with the woman.”

2. On Mental Health Consideration:

“In determining whether the continuation of a pregnancy would result in grave mental injury, a  woman’s actual and reasonably foreseeable environment must be taken into account.”

3. On Marital Rape (significant obiter):

“For the purposes of the MTP Act, the expression ‘rape’ would necessarily include marital rape,  even though this observation does not modify the existing criminal law relating to the offence of  rape.”

4. On Medical Authorities:

The Court made it clear that registered medical practitioners cannot impose extra-legal

conditions such as requiring parental consent, marital proof, or approval from family  members. Such requirements have no statutory basis and directly violate a woman’s  autonomy.

These obiter dicta are likely to influence not only abortion law, but also future debates regarding  marital rape, consent, and gender justice in India.

IMPORTANT DIRECTIONS ISSUED

To give effective relief to the petitioner, the Supreme Court directed:

1. A Medical Board at AIIMS, Delhi, shall be constituted immediately to examine the petitioner.
2. If the Board finds that the termination can be carried out without grave risk to her life, the procedure shall be performed immediately.
3. The identity of the petitioner must be kept strictly confidential.
4. No unnecessary procedural or moral obstacles shall be placed in the way of the termination.

These directions were issued keeping in mind the urgency, the gestational period, and the mental  health of the petitioner.

OBSERVATIONS

The Court’s verdict in this case marks a historic transition from status-based morality to a rights based constitutional approach. For many years, Indian society and even the law viewed unmarried motherhood as something socially unacceptable. This judgment firmly rejects that  mindset.

By acknowledging that relationships, families, and social arrangements can exist outside the  institution of marriage, the Supreme Court brought the law in line with modern social realities. The decision also humanised the law by placing the woman, her lived circumstances, and her  autonomy at the centre of the legal analysis.

It sends a resounding message that:

• The Constitution does not support compulsory motherhood
• Motherhood must be a choice, not a burden
• The woman is the sole authority over her reproductive future

The case strengthens India’s position as a progressive constitutional democracy and aligns its  domestic abortion laws more in line with international human rights standards.

CONCLUSION

The judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of  NCT of Delhi is more than a simple legal ruling; it is a profound constitutional declaration that a  woman’s body is her own.

It undermines the notion that personal liberty depends on marital status and clearly affirms that  autonomy, privacy, dignity, and bodily integrity are universal rights owed to every woman. By recognising that an unmarried woman is equally entitled to make abortion decisions, the  Supreme Court delivered a strong blow against gender discrimination and long-standing  patriarchal control.

This case will not only shape abortion jurisprudence in India but will also influence broader  conversations on consent, identity, individual choice, and bodily rights.

In recognising that reproductive decisions belong solely to the woman, the Court reaffirmed one  of the most sacred principles of a democratic Constitution:

That every individual is sovereign over their own body and destiny.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Primary Case Law
2. X v. Principal Sec’y, Health & Fam. Welfare Dep’t, Gov’t of the NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321 (India).
3. Constitutional Provisions
4. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
5. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
6. INDIA CONST. art. 19(1)(a).
7. Statutes (Central Legislation)
8. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, No. 34 of 1971 (India).
9. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 2021 (India). 7. The Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, § 375 (India).
10. The Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974 (India).
11. Rules / Subordinate Legislation
12. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, r. 3B (India) (as amended in 2021). 10. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 2003 (India).
13. Related & Supporting Indian Constitutional Case Law
14. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
15. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
16. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 S.C.C. 368 (India).
17. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 9 S.C.C. 1 (India).
18. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5J.) v. Union of India, (2019) 1 S.C.C. 1 (India). 16. Common Cause v. Union of India, (2018) 5 S.C.C. 1 (India).
19. International Legal Frameworks
20. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Dec. 18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
21. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
22. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, U.N. Doc. A/810 (Dec. 10, 1948).
23. Academic & Institutional Sources
24. World Health Organization, Abortion Care Guidelines (2022).
25. United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), Reproductive Rights and Bodily Autonomy Report (2021).
26. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, MTP Amendment Act: Legislative Intent Note (2021) (India).