CASE BRIEFING
Case Title and Citation
Factual Background
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Manipur currently residing in Delhi, became pregnant in June 2022 from a consensual relationship. An ultrasound scan on July 5, 2022, revealed a pregnancy of twenty-two weeks. The petitioner decided to terminate the pregnancy because her relationship had failed. She stated that she is the eldest of five siblings, her parents are agriculturists, and she lacks a source of livelihood, making her unable to raise and nurture a child. She moved the Delhi High Court seeking permission for termination. The High Court, in an order dated July 15, 2022, issued notice restricted only to prayer C (which sought the inclusion of an unmarried woman within the ambit of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules for termination up to twenty-four weeks). Prayers A and B, which sought immediate permission for termination, effectively stood rejected. The petitioner completed 24 weeks of her pregnancy on July 18, 2022. The High Court held that since the petitioner is an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, her case is “clearly not covered” by any of the clauses of Rule 3B, and thus Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act was not applicable.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the High Court has taken an unduly restrictive view of the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.
2. Whether excluding an unmarried woman from the ambit of the statute goes against the purpose of the legislation.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court decided to entertain the Special Leave Petition and held that the ad interim direction of the High Court of Delhi declining to grant interim relief shall stand modified. The Court issued an ad interim order directing AIIMS, Delhi, to constitute a Medical Board immediately. If the Medical Board concludes that the fetus can be aborted without danger to the life of the petitioner, a team of doctors at AIIMS shall carry out the abortion after obtaining the renewed written consent of the petitioner.
Reason for the decision
1. Restrictive Interpretation of Rule 3B: The Court held prima facie that the High Court took an unduly restrictive view of the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 3B. Clause (c) speaks of a “change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)”. The expression “change of marital status” should be given a purposive rather than a restrictive interpretation, and the expressions “widowhood and divorce” need not be construed to be exhaustive of the category which precedes it.
2. Legislative Intent: By amending the MTP Act in 2021 (Act 8 of 2021), Parliament intended to include unmarried women and single women within the ambit of the Act. This is evident from the replacement of the word ‘husband’ with ‘partner’ in Explanation 1 of Section 3(2). Explanation 1 expressly contemplates an unwanted pregnancy caused by the failure of any device or method used by “any woman or her partner,” which shows the intent is not to confine the beneficial provisions only to a matrimonial relationship.
3. Constitutional Rights (Article 21): A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily integrity and autonomy. Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal autonomy and freedom.
4. Gap in the Law: While Section 3 of the MTP Act travels beyond conventional relationships based on marriage, Rule 3B does not explicitly envisage a situation involving unmarried women. There is no basis to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate the pregnancy, when the same choice is available to other categories of women recognised in Rule 3B.
5. Judicial Delay: The petitioner had moved the High Court before she had completed 24 weeks of pregnancy, and the delay in the judicial process cannot work to her prejudice.
Conclusion
The Court found that allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy would be contrary to the intent of the law enacted by Parliament. The distinction between married and unmarried women does not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object of the Act. Consequently, the Court granted interim relief, directing AIIMS to constitute a Medical Board and, if the procedure is safe, perform the abortion.
