Authored By: SAUMYA PAL
University of Lucknow
Case Title & Citation
X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr., (2022)
Civil Appeal No. 502 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12612 of 2022). Reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.
Court & Bench
The case was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India.
The bench comprised three judges:
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice A.S. Bopanna
Justice B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgement
Decided on 29 September 2022
Parties Involved
Appellant:
X, a 25-year-old unmarried woman from Manipur, temporarily residing in Delhi.
Respondents:
Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, and another.
Facts of the Case
The appellant conceived during a consensual relationship, but her partner later denied to marry her. At 22–23 weeks of gestation, she sought permission from the Delhi High Court to terminate her pregnancy under Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules, 2003.
The rule permits abortions up to 24 weeks in cases of significant change in marital status. However, the High Court denied relief, interpreting the rule strictly as applicable only to married women. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether the phrase “change in marital status” under Rule 3B(c) includes unmarried women?
- Whether excluding unmarried women from the scope of Rule 3B violates Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution?
- Whether the MTP Rules should be interpreted in light of the 2021 legislative amendment and constitutional values?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Argument:
The appellant’s counsel argued that denying access to abortion services on the basis of marital status is unconstitutional. An unmarried woman should be given the right to determine her abortion.
The 2021 amendment to the MTP Act replaced “married woman or her husband” with “any woman or her partner,” indicating an inclusive legislative intent. It was emphasized that such denial erodes women’s freedom to make independent choices regarding their bodily autonomy and perpetuates stigma against unmarried mothers.
Respondents’ Argument:
The state opposed the plea, maintaining that Rule 3B(c) clearly referred to a “change in marital status,” and thus did not cover unmarried women.
The government insisted on a firm textual interpretation, claiming that any extension of the rule’s scope should come through legislative amendment, not judicial interpretation.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s decision and allowed the appellant to terminate her pregnancy. The Court held that marital status cannot be a ground for refusing access to safe and legal abortion. It emphasized that the MTP Act must be interpreted in a way consistent with constitutional principles, especially those concerning dignity, equality, and personal liberty. It was held that there should not be any discrimination based on marital status under the MTP Act 1971 and MTP Rules 2003, explicitly after the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act.
Reasoning & Legal Principles Applied
The Court took a conscious approach to statutory interpretation. It noted that the 2021 amendment to the MTP Act signifies Parliament’s object to extend abortion rights beyond the marital framework.
The bench emphasized that reproductive autonomy is central to Article 21 of the Constitution. Referring to judgments like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (privacy) and Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, the Court reinforced the notion that reproductive rights are essential to women’s autonomy and bodily integrity.
It acknowledged the right of unmarried women to avail abortion up to 24 weeks. Additionally, it highlighted that restricting these rights based on marital status would amount to discrimination under Article 14.
Critical Analysis
The Indian jurisprudence on reproductive rights has significantly expanded as a result of this ruling. It acknowledges that laws must change to take into account modern circumstances. The Court lessened the discriminatory effect of the law on unmarried women by interpreting Rule 3B inclusively. Although, the decision also highlights the necessity of clear legislative changes to remove any ambiguities. Furthermore, access to abortion services varies by location, especially in rural areas with inadequate medical infrastructure. Although admirable, the Court’s reliance on constitutional morality also emphasizes how the judiciary must cover legislative gaps.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case marks a crucial declaration of women’s autonomy and reproductive freedom. It bridges the gap between legal text and lived reality, asserting that the rights to dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy must be upheld irrespective of marital status. The judgment sets a strong precedent for future legal reforms and is a testament to the evolving understanding of reproductive justice in India. It reaffirms that the law must serve the interests of all women, not only those within traditional frameworks.
Reference(S):
- X v. Principal Sec’y, Health & Family Welfare Dep’t, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1321.
- The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, No. 34 of 1971, § 3, India Code (2021).
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Sec. 3(i) (June 13, 2003).
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, (2009) 9 SCC 1.
- INDIA CONST. art. 14.
- INDIA CONST. art. 21.
- Drishti Judiciary, X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Welfare Department & Anr. (2022), https://www.drishtijudiciary.com.
- The Amikus Qriae, Case Analysis: X v. Principal Secretary, https://theamikusqriae.com.
- CCG-NLU Delhi, Privacy Library, X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, https://privacylibrary.ccgnlud.org.
