Legal Brief: X v. Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department: A critical Analysis
Prepared by: Adv. Aakanksha Bhatia
Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court
Date: July 21, 2022
Bench: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Surya Kant & Justice A.S. Bopanna
Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 905
Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a resident of Manipur, currently residing in Delhi, was in a consensual relationship that ended in failure of relationship after she became pregnant. At 22 weeks of pregnancy, the petititoner decided to terminate the pregnancy, citing her inability to raise and nurture a child in the absence of a source of livelihood.
The Petitioner filed a writ petition with the Delhi High Court seeking permission for the termination to which the High Court issued notice only on the prayer for inclusion of unmarried women under Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 (MTP Rules), effectively rejecting the other prayers which included the termination of pregnancy. By the time the case reached the Apex Court, the petitioner had completed 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Issues:
- Whether the exclusion of unmarried women from Rule 3B of the MTP Rules for termination of pregnancy between 20-24 weeks, under Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 (MTP Act), is unconstitutional.
- Whether the term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B of the MTP Rules should be interpreted broadly to include an unmarried woman.
Petitioner’s Argument:
- Rule 3B, by excluding unmarried women, violates Article 14 of the Constitution i.e equality before law and equal protection of laws to all individuals of India.
- The petitioner’s situation, being deserted by her partner, has caused her mental anguish and suffering, falling within the objectives of the MTP Act, 1971.
- Denying unmarried women, the right to a safe abortion violates their fundamental right to personal autonomy, bodily integrity, and right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Legal Analysis:
- The main issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was to examine the validity of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, 2003, in light of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, as it excluded unmarried women from accessing safe and legal abortions. The Court emphasized that the interpretation of the MTP Act and rules should reflect the current social realities and not be limited by societal norms regarding age or marital status.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized a purposive interpretation of “change in marital status” in Rule 3B, stating that “widowhood and divorce” are not exhaustive categories.
- The Court highlighted the 2021 amendment to the MTP Act, replacing “husband” with “partner” and “married woman” with “any woman,” indicating Parliament’s intent to include unmarried women.
- The Court recognized a woman’s right to reproductive choice, bodily integrity, and autonomy as inherent facets of Article 21 of the Constitution, irrespective of marital status.
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court cited previous judgments (Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, High Court on its own motion v. State of Maharashtra) to emphasize the importance of a woman’s right to make reproductive autonomy as a dimension of Article 21 of the Constitution, including abortion and forcing a woman to continue with the pregnancy is a violation of bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma which would be deleterious to her mental health.
- The Court also cited S Khusboo v. Kanniammal to emphasize that personal autonomy should be respected and criminal law shouldn’t be used to interfere in such matters.
Ruling of the Supreme Court:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court found the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 3B unduly restrictive and issued an interim order. The Apex Court directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Delhi to constitute a Medical Board to determine if the foetus could be aborted safely. The Court stated that if the Medical Board deemed the abortion safe, a team of doctors at AIIMS should perform the procedure after obtaining the petitioner’s written consent after due verification of identity.
Conclusion:
In my opinion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while recognizing the legislative gap between the MTP Act and Rules, upheld an unmarried woman’s right to safe abortion as an integral part of her personal liberty and reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The Court’s interim order reflects its intent to provide relief to the petitioner while recognizing the need for a proper medical opinion in such a situation.