Unmarried Women Have Equal Right to Abortion Like Married Women up to 24 Weeks: Bombay High Court

"The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes 'permissible sex'" –  In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court reiterated the binding authority of the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, upholding the right of unmarried women to seek termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

The Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande dismissed a constitutional challenge to Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, observing that the issue stood “conclusively settled” by the Supreme Court. The Court stated, “We would only point out that by virtue of Article 144 of the Constitution of India, every authority including civil and judicial, in the territory of India is duty bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court.”

The petitioner, a 26-year-old unmarried woman who was 22 weeks pregnant, had approached the High Court both seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy and to challenge the validity of the statutory scheme which, on its face, limited access to abortion beyond 20 weeks only to certain prescribed categories of women under Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2021). The petitioner contended that her exclusion as an unmarried woman amounted to a denial of her constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Though the Court had already granted her medical relief earlier in August 2022—permitting termination at a government-approved centre—the constitutional challenge to the legal provisions remained for adjudication. The petitioner had argued that the failure of contraception in a consensual relationship, coupled with fear of social stigma and lack of familial support, placed her in circumstances warranting parity with the enumerated categories under Rule 3-B.

Purposive Interpretation Validated: Exclusion of Unmarried Women Found Unconstitutional by Supreme Court

During the pendency of the case, the Union of India placed on record the landmark 2022 Supreme Court decision in X v. Principal Secretary, which had addressed the very issue raised by the petitioner. The Supreme Court, in that case, held:

“The object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3-B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women. In view of the object, there is no rationale for excluding unmarried or single women (who face a change in their material circumstances) from the ambit of Rule 3-B.”

“A narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution… The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the right of choice on whether or not to bear a child, on a similar footing as a married woman.”

Relying heavily on these observations, the Bombay High Court held that no separate adjudication was now necessary on the constitutional validity of the MTP provisions, since the Supreme Court had already accorded them a purposive interpretation consistent with the parent Act’s objective.

The Court underlined the settled principle that subordinate legislation must be read in harmony with the enabling Act and cannot arbitrarily restrict the scope of substantive rights. Justice Dangre noted that “the common thread running through each category of women in Rule 3-B is that the woman is in a unique and often difficult circumstance… there is no reason to exclude unmarried women facing similar adversity.”

Authorities Bound to Comply; Maharashtra Directed to Ensure Statewide Implementation

The Court also took cognizance of the petitioner’s plea for systemic relief beyond her individual case. Expressing concern that similarly situated women may continue to face institutional resistance despite the Supreme Court’s pronouncement, the Court directed the State of Maharashtra’s Public Health Department to ensure wide circulation of the Apex Court’s decision.

Citing Article 144 of the Constitution—which mandates all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of the Supreme Court—the High Court clarified that the purposive interpretation now forms binding law, and it would be “needless to state” that implementation agencies must act in conformity with it.

As no further relief remained pending for the petitioner—who had already undergone the permitted termination—the writ petition was formally disposed of.

This judgment fortifies the principle that reproductive rights are not contingent upon marital status and affirms that the constitutional guarantee of dignity and autonomy applies equally to all women, regardless of social conventions.

Date of Decision: 29 January 2026