Court Allows To Seek Termination Of Pregnancy to Unmarried Woman: SC

Thursday, the Supreme Court issued an interim order allowing an unmarried woman with a 24-week pregnancy resulting from a live-in relationship to have an abortion, provided that a medical board convened by AIIMS Delhi determines that the foetus can be aborted without endangering the woman's life.

While denying the woman interim relief, a bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud observed that the Delhi High Court took a "overly restrictive" view of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules.

Noting that after the 2021 amendment, the explanation to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act uses the word "partner" instead of "husband," the Court stated that this demonstrates the legislative intent to include "unmarried woman" under the Act.

"Petitioner should not be denied the benefit on the basis that she is a single woman," observed the court. The bench noted that the intent of the legislature is not to restrict benefits to situations arising from marriage. It was stated that widows and divorced women are permitted to terminate a pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks.

The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant, determined that permitting the petitioner to endure an unwanted pregnancy would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the law.

"We believe that allowing the petitioner to endure an unintended pregnancy would run counter to the intent of the law passed by Congress. In addition, a proper interpretation of the statute indicates that allowing the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy falls within the statute's scope, and the petitioner should not be denied the benefit because she is unmarried. The distinction between married and unmarried women has no bearing on the fundamental purpose and objective which Parliament seeks to achieve "The court stated.

The bench was reviewing the petition filed by a 25-year-old unmarried woman seeking termination of her 24-week pregnancy resulting from a consensual relationship against the Delhi High Court's order denying her the requested relief.

The High Court determined that an unmarried woman whose pregnancy results from a consensual relationship is not covered by any of the 2003 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules.

Insofar as Rule 3(b) speaks of "change in marital status" of woman, followed by expressions widowhood or divorce, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the High Court had taken a "overly restrictive view." It was determined that the phrase "change in marital status" requires a "purposeful interpretation."

Aside from this, the Supreme Court stated that courts cannot ignore the legislative intent behind the amendment to Explanation 1 of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which expressly contemplates unwanted pregnancy resulting from the failure of a method or device used by the woman or her "partner" to prevent pregnancy.

"The use of the phrase 'woman or her partner' indicates coverage of unmarried women, which is consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution."

-AIIMS Delhi Director will establish a medical board in accordance with Section 3(2)(d) of the MTP Act on July 22.

-Should the Medical Board determine that the foetus can be aborted without endangering the petitioner's life, the AIIMS shall perform the abortion in accordance with the petition. The court will receive the report following the conclusion of the procedure.

The Court has issued a notice to the Union Government and requested the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati regarding the interpretation of the statute.

The petitioner informed the Supreme Court that she is the oldest of five siblings and that her parents are farmers. She further argued that without a source of income, she will be unable to raise and care for the child.

A divisional bench composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad refused to grant her permission for an abortion on July 16, 2022, stating:

"As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 remains in effect, and this Court, in exercising its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot exceed the Statute. Providing interim relief at this time would be equivalent to granting the writ petition itself."

Counsel for the Petitioner argued before the High Court that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, because it excluded unmarried women.

"The validity of such a rule can only be determined after it has been deemed ultra vires, for which purpose notice must be issued in the writ petition, which this court has done."

The Court noted that section 3(2)(a) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act stipulates that a Medical Practitioner may terminate a pregnancy if it has not exceeded 20 weeks.

The Court added, "Section 3(2)(b) of the Act provides for termination when the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks."

D.D: 21-07-2022

XXX vs The Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department