Supreme Court Expands Abortion Rights: Unmarried Women Included Under MTP Act (29 September 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 827

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, A S Bopanna, J, and J B Pardiwala, J.

Can unmarried women be denied the right to terminate a pregnancy? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) and its rules. This judgment ensures that all women, regardless of marital status, have the right to safe and legal abortion services. The bench comprised of Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, A S Bopanna, J, and J B Pardiwala, J, delivered a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The appellant, a 25-year-old unmarried woman from Manipur residing in New Delhi, sought to terminate her 22-week pregnancy. She had conceived through a consensual relationship, but her partner refused to marry her. Citing the social stigma and lack of financial resources, she argued that continuing the pregnancy would severely impact her mental health. She sought permission from the High Court of Delhi to terminate her pregnancy under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (MTP Rules).

The High Court of Delhi rejected her plea, stating that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules did not cover unmarried women in consensual relationships. Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on 21 July 2022, allowed the appellant to terminate her pregnancy, directing a medical board at AIIMS to assess the situation. The pregnancy was successfully terminated, and the case was taken up for further consideration due to its significant legal implications.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy. The High Court, however, restricted its notice to the question of whether Rule 3B of the MTP Rules was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution for excluding unmarried women. The High Court rejected the appellant’s application for interim relief, effectively denying her the right to terminate her pregnancy. This led to the appellant filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, recognizing the urgency, modified the High Court’s order and allowed the pregnancy to be terminated. The Supreme Court then took up the case to address the substantial question of law regarding the interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules.

Legal Framework

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (MTP Rules) govern the termination of pregnancies in India. Section 3 of the MTP Act outlines the conditions under which a pregnancy can be terminated by registered medical practitioners (RMPs). The MTP Act was amended in 2021, extending the upper limit for permissible termination of pregnancy from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for certain categories of women.

Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act allows termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks for specific categories of women as prescribed by the rules. Rule 3B of the MTP Rules specifies these categories, including survivors of sexual assault, minors, women with disabilities, and women with a change in marital status during pregnancy. The court has also considered the explanation to Section 3(2) of the MTP Act, which provides for legal presumptions indicating what constitutes a grave injury to the pregnant woman’s mental health.

Section 3(1) of the MTP Act states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.”

Section 3(2) of the MTP Act states, “Subject to the provisions of sub- section (4), a pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner, — (a) where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or (b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but does not exceed twenty -four weeks in case of such category of woman as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of the opinion, formed in good faith, that — (i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health; or (ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from any serious physical or mental abnormality.”

Rule 3B of the MTP Rules states, “The following categories of women shall be considered eligible for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of sub- section (2) Section 3 of the Act, for a period of up to twenty -four weeks, namely— (a) survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest; (b) minors; (c) change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce); (d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as per criteria laid down under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)]; (e) mentally ill women including mental retardation; (f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and (g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the Government.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that she was an unmarried woman whose partner had refused to marry her.
• She lacked financial resources and was not mentally prepared to raise a child alone, which would cause grave injury to her mental health.
• She also contended that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules are discriminatory as they exclude unmarried women, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Respondent’s Submissions (Assisted by Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General):

• The interpretation of legislation must be guided by the text, context, and the object it seeks to achieve.
• Modern legislation should be read in view of societal evolution, and a purposive interpretation should be adopted.
• Subordinate legislation should give effect to the statute under which it is enacted.
• The term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) should be interpreted as “change in the status of a relationship” to include unmarried women.
• Live-in relationships are equivalent to marital relationships, and women have the right to bodily integrity, autonomy, and reproductive rights.

Submissions Table

Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument innovatively interprets “change of marital status” to include changes in relationships, thus extending the scope of Rule 3B to unmarried women. This approach aligns with the evolving societal norms and promotes inclusivity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:

1. Whether Rule 3B of the MTP Rules includes unmarried women, single women, or women without a partner within its ambit?

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) could be interpreted to include changes in the status of a relationship, thereby encompassing unmarried women.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, AIR 1957 SC 907 – Supreme Court of India: The intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature itself.
• Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, 1977 SCR (3) 412 – Supreme Court of India: When words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, they should be construed in light of the object and purpose of the enactment.
• Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar, (1955) 2 SCR 603 – Supreme Court of India: Applied the mischief rule in Heydon’s case in the construction of Article 286 of the Constitution.
• Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1988) 3 SCC 609 – Supreme Court of India: The Court should look for the intention of the legislature or the purpose of the statute.
• Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341 – Supreme Court of India: Progressive and beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of the beneficiaries.
• S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 4 SCC 596 – Supreme Court of India: Adopted a purposive interpretation of the term “dowry” in the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961.
• Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse, (2014) 1 SCC 188 – Supreme Court of India: The law should be interpreted in terms of the changing needs of the times and circumstances.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Section 377 had a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of individuals.
• S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600 – Supreme Court of India: Live-in relationships and pre-marital sex should not be associated with criminality.
• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1088 – Supreme Court of India: Family units may manifest in atypical ways.
• Surendra Chauhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2000) 4 SCC 110 – Supreme Court of India: Highlighted the dangers of unsafe abortions.
• X v. Union of India, (2017) 3 SCC 458 – Supreme Court of India: Permitted the termination of post twenty week pregnancies after taking into account the risk of grave injury to the mental health of a pregnant woman.
• Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Recognized that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India: Recognized the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800 – Supreme Court of India: Sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age is rape regardless of whether or not she is married.
• High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 8426 – High Court of Bombay: Compelling a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy violates her bodily integrity.
• Sidra Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC Online Bom 1839 – High Court of Bombay: Permitted termination of pregnancy due to domestic violence and lack of support.
• XYZ v. State of Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 13751 – High Court of Bombay: Permitted termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman after considering her socio-economic condition.
• Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11672 – High Court of Bombay: Permitted termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman who was not mentally ready to be an unwed mother.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971: Specifies when pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.
• Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003: Specifies the categories of women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Protects the right to life and personal liberty.
• Article 51 of the Constitution of India: Requires the state to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations.
• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Recognizes and protects the inherent right to life of all human beings.
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Enshrines the right to mental and physical health.
• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Requires state parties to eliminate discrimination against women in healthcare services.
• Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines rape (with an exception for marital rape).
• The Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994: Criminalizes the communication of the sex of the foetus to the pregnant woman or her relatives.
• Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Criminalizes physical, mental, and emotional abuse.
• The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961: Criminalizes the giving and taking of dowry.
• The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Criminalizes sexual activity by those below the age of eighteen.

Authority Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on various authorities to support its reasoning:

• The Court cited Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan to emphasize that the intention of the legislature must be found in the words used by the legislature.
• The Court referred to Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak to state that ambiguous words should be construed in light of the object and purpose of the enactment.
• The Court applied the mischief rule from Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar to interpret the MTP Act.
• The Court cited Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) to reiterate that the Court should look for the intention of the legislature or the purpose of the statute.
• The Court used Kerala Fishermen’s Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy Food to support that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of the beneficiaries.
• The Court referred to S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P. to justify adopting a purposive interpretation.
• The Court cited Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse to emphasize that the law should be interpreted in terms of changing societal needs.
• The Court used Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India to highlight the chilling effect of criminalization on individual freedoms.
• The Court cited S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal to support the view that live-in relationships and pre-marital sex should not be criminalized.
• The Court referred to Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal to acknowledge the diverse forms of family units.
• The Court used Surendra Chauhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh to illustrate the dangers of unsafe abortions.
• The Court cited X v. Union of India to support the permissibility of terminating post-20-week pregnancies based on mental health risks.
• The Court relied on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration to recognize reproductive autonomy as a dimension of personal liberty.
• The Court referred to K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India to support the right to privacy as a constitutionally protected right.
• The Court cited Independent Thought v. Union of India to emphasize that sexual intercourse with a minor is rape regardless of marital status.
• The Court referred to High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra to support that compelling a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy violates her bodily integrity.
• The Court used Sidra Mehboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra to support permitting termination of pregnancy due to domestic violence.
• The Court cited XYZ v. State of Maharashtra to support permitting termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman based on socio-economic conditions.
• The Court referred to Siddhi Vishwanath Shelar v. State of Maharashtra to support permitting termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman who was not mentally ready to be an unwed mother.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold women’s reproductive rights, dignity, and autonomy. The Court emphasized the following:

• The purposive interpretation of the MTP Act and MTP Rules to include unmarried women.
• The recognition of changing social norms and the need for laws to reflect these changes.
• The importance of bodily autonomy and decisional autonomy in reproductive choices.
• The need to prevent discrimination against unmarried women and ensure equal access to safe abortion services.
• The constitutional mandate to protect the right to life and dignity under Article 21.

Sentiment Analysis Table:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (65%) than by factual aspects (35%). The focus was on interpreting the existing laws to align with constitutional values and societal realities.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the arguments for and against the inclusion of unmarried women under Rule 3B. It rejected the narrow interpretation that would exclude unmarried women, emphasizing that such an interpretation would be discriminatory and would violate the constitutional rights to equality, life, and dignity. The Court held that the term “change of marital status” should be interpreted to include changes in the status of a relationship, thereby encompassing unmarried women. The Court also considered the historical context and the legislative intent behind the MTP Act, emphasizing that it is a beneficial legislation designed to protect women’s health and reproductive rights.

The majority opinion was delivered by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with A S Bopanna, J, and J B Pardiwala, J, concurring.

“The interpretation of a subordinate legislation should be consistent with the enabling Act.”

“The law must remain cognizant of the fact that changes in society have ushered in significant changes in family structures.”

“A woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a frivolous one. Abortion is often the only way out of a very difficult situation for a woman.”

Key Takeaways

• Unmarried women are now explicitly included under the ambit of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, ensuring their access to safe and legal abortion services.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of bodily autonomy and reproductive rights for all women, irrespective of their marital status.
• The Court has adopted a purposive interpretation of the MTP Act and MTP Rules, aligning them with constitutional values and societal realities.
• The judgment may have a significant impact on reducing unsafe abortions and maternal mortality among unmarried women.
• It is a step towards a more inclusive and gender-equal society, recognizing the rights of all women to make informed decisions about their reproductive health.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but it emphasized the positive obligation of the state to ensure access to safe and affordable abortion services for all women.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B of the MTP Rules must be interpreted to include changes in the status of a relationship, thereby encompassing unmarried women, single women, or women without a partner. This interpretation is essential to uphold the constitutional rights to equality, life, and dignity.

Changes in Law: This judgment effectively expands the scope of the MTP Act and MTP Rules by including unmarried women within the ambit of the provisions allowing for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks. While the text of the MTP Act and Rules remains unchanged, the Court’s interpretation has significantly broadened the application of these provisions. This judgment has set a precedent for a more inclusive and rights-based approach to reproductive health in India.

Critique

Strengths:

• Purposive Interpretation: The Court’s purposive interpretation of Rule 3B is a major strength, as it aligns the law with the changing social realities and ensures that the law serves its intended purpose of protecting women’s health and reproductive rights.
• Inclusivity: The judgment is highly inclusive, as it ensures that unmarried women are not discriminated against and have equal access to safe abortion services.
• Bodily Autonomy: The Court’s emphasis on bodily autonomy and reproductive rights is commendable, as it recognizes a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body and reproductive health.
• Constitutional Values: The judgment upholds the constitutional values of equality, life, and dignity, thus strengthening the rule of law.
• Precedent Setting: The judgment sets a positive precedent for future cases related to reproductive rights and gender equality.

Weaknesses:

• No Explicit Amendment: The Court did not explicitly amend the MTP Rules, but instead provided an interpretation. While this is a powerful step, an explicit amendment would have provided more clarity and legal certainty.
• Potential for Misinterpretation: While the Court has provided a clear interpretation, there is still a potential for misinterpretation or resistance at the ground level by some medical practitioners or authorities.
• Implementation Challenges: The judgment may face implementation challenges, particularly in rural areas, where access to healthcare services may be limited.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case is a landmark decision that significantly expands access to safe and legal abortion services for unmarried women in India. By adopting a purposive interpretation of the MTP Act and MTP Rules, the Court has ensured that all women, irrespective of their marital status, have the right to make informed decisions about their reproductive health. The judgment is a testament to the progressive evolution of Indian jurisprudence and its commitment to upholding constitutional values and human rights. It also underscores the need for laws to remain relevant in the face of changing social norms and to protect the rights and dignity of all individuals.