-
by Admin
15 February 2026 5:01 PM
D.D:15-07-2022
The Delhi High Court denied a 25-year-old unwed woman's request to terminate her 23-week pregnancy.
According to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (MTP Rules), an unmarried woman who is carrying a child from a consensual sexual relationship is not permitted to terminate her pregnancy after 20 weeks. A division bench composed of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad denied the relief "Clearly, none of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 apply to the Petitioner, who is unmarried and whose pregnancy results from a consensual relationship. Consequently, Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is inapplicable to this case "stated the Court in its order.
It added that, as of today, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules remains in effect and prohibits the termination of a nonmarital woman's pregnancy after 20 weeks, so the Court cannot exceed the statute.
"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 "it said.
However, the court kept the petition pending and notified Delhi's Health and Family Welfare Department that it must file a response to the petition by August 26.
Notice is limited to the petition's prayer to include unmarried women within the scope of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, according to the court.
According to the Rules, only rape victims, minors, women whose marital status changed during pregnancy, mentally ill women, and women with a malformed foetus may terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks.
During yesterday's (Friday) hearing of the same petition, the judges remarked that an abortion at this stage would be tantamount to murder.
The judge recommended that the child be placed for adoption.
"Why do you murder the child? "There is a lengthy waiting list for child adoption," the Chief Justice stated.
It was also stated that the woman is not required to raise the child and that the government or hospital will take care of everything.
"I am willing to pay," stated the Chief Justice.
The judge had also sought the opinion of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was present in the courtroom.
According to Sibal, the child should not be aborted at this point.
However, the woman's attorney informed the court that the continuation of her pregnancy will negatively affect her physical and mental health.
The judges then instructed the attorney to obtain instructions from the petitioner and scheduled the case to be heard after lunch.
After speaking with the petitioner, the attorney informed the court that she is unwilling to continue carrying the pregnancy to term.
The bench stated, however, that the law prohibits killing the child.
MS. X
Versus
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI
[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/15-07-2022-Ms_X_v_Health_and_Family_Welfare_Department_GNCTD.pdf"]
