X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi & Anr.
Supreme Court of India
C.A 5802/2022
INTRODUCTION
The 3-judge bench of DY Chandrachud J, AS Bopanna J and JB Pardiwala J, while holding that unmarried or single women have the right to safe abortion as much as married women, went into a detailed discussion around the equal status of married and unmarried or single women for the purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy laws. Court gave a broad interpretation to the Rule 3B under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.
FACTS
The appellant was an unmarried woman aged about 25 years who became pregnant as a result of a consensual relationship. The Appellant wished to terminate her pregnancy as “her partner had refused to marry her at the last stage”. She stated that she did not want to carry the pregnancy to term since she was wary of the “social stigma and harassment” pertaining to unmarried single parents, especially women. Moreover, the appellant submitted that in the absence of a source of livelihood, she was not mentally prepared to “raise and nurture the child as an unmarried mother.” Appellant also stated that the continuation of the unwanted pregnancy would involve a risk of grave and immense injury to the appellant’s mental health.
Delhi High Court refused to terminate her pregnancy and stated that the Petitioner is not covered by the clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. Supreme Court, however, in SLP modified the order of the HC, granted an interim order and permitted the appellant to terminate her pregnancy.
ISSUES
1. Is Rule 3B of the MTP Rules 2003 ultravirus?
2. Does rule 3B of MTP includes unmarried women as well?
3. Does Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules violate Article 14 of the Indian Constitution?
JUDGMENT
This court disposing of the present appeal gave a purposive interpretation to Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (MTP Rules).
Court held that notwithstanding Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC under which marital rape is not criminalised, the meaning of the words “sexual assault” or “rape” in Rule 3B(a) of MTP rules includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife. This means that under the perview of MTP Act Marital rapes are recognized.
Court declared that unmarried women are also entitled to seek abortion of pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks arising out of a consensual relationship
as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 had made it illegal for unmarried women who were 20–24 weeks pregnant after having consenting intercourse to have a legal abortion.
Court observed that permitting termination of pregnancy arising out of consensual relationships only upto 20 weeks as per MTP Act and rules was against Right to equality.
As per the law, a Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP) is obligated to report the matter to the police if a minor approaches him or her for abortion under POCSO Act, Court observed that Protecting the identity of the victim is necessary and held that a registered medical practitioner is exempted from disclosing the identity and other personal details of a minor in the information provided under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
Court for the first time used queer-affirmative language in interpreting the MTP Act. It clarified that the word woman isn’t limited to cis-gendered woman, thereby including trans men and non-binary persons under the ambit of this law.
Court stated that mentally ill women are also covered under the ambit of Rule 3B(e).
Court further added that state must ensure that all segments of society have access to contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancies and plan their families; medical facilities and RMPs must be present in every district and must be affordable to all; the government must ensure that RMPs treat all patients equally and sensitively; and treatment must not be withheld on the basis of a patient’s race, gender, or sexual orientation.
Citing the case of K.S. Puttaswamy Vs. Union Of India, where 9 judges bench recognized right to equality and held that it enables individuals to retain and exercise autonomy over mind and body, Court reinforced the bodily and reproductive autonomy of pregnant persons.
OBSERVATION
The court observed that “prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14”, it also went ahead to include married women under the scope of Rule 3B(a) i.e. survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest.
Court noted that the 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act does not make a distinction between married and unmarried women and held that all women are entitled to safe and legal abortion.
Interpreting the MTP Act and MTP Rules, Court focused upon certain constitutional values, such as the right to reproductive autonomy,
the right to live a dignified life, the right to equality, and the right to privacy.
CONCLUSION
Bench rightly said that the MTP act must consider the realities of today and must not be restricted by old norms. It was also rightly said that the law must not remain static and must keep in mind changing social realities. This landmark judgment gave every woman whether married or unmarried a right to safe and legal abortion and gave broad interpretation to Rule 3(b) of MTP Act.
Comments