X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of NCT Delhi

Keywords: The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, Article 21 in The Constitution Of India 1949, Section 3 in The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

INTRODUCTION:

The autonomy of a woman’s body and reproductive system fundamentally includes her choice of whether or not to have children. All of the immediate and long-term consequences of bearing a child inside her womb fall on the woman. While it is frequently observed that single or unmarried women engage in pre-marital Relationships must contend with pervasive societal stigmas, particularly those related to pregnancies and with its most recent decision, the Supreme Court seeks to outlaw abortions. Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (hence referred to as the MTP Rules) was given a broad meaning by the Hon’ble Court.

It expanded the scope of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules to include unmarried women and survivors of marital rape as candidates for abortions during pregnancies between 20 and 24 weeks. In the current instance, the court gave an unmarried woman permission to end a consensual relationship-based 24-week pregnancy. The Honourable Court reasoned that the woman’s mental health would be severely harmed if the pregnancy continued. This is a landmark Judgment[1] and it also states that victims of marital rape can also end their pregnancy without permission from their respective husbands.

BACKGROUND OF CASE:

The petitioner, who was born in Manipur, now resides permanently in Delhi.  She was a 25 year old B. A Graduate who used to live with 4 siblings of Farmer parents. The issue at hand was an appeal filed with the Supreme Court of India in response to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on July 15, 2022. She used the High Court of Delhi’s writ jurisdiction to request permission from the Hon’ble High Court to end her pregnancy before 24 weeks as of 15 July 2022. The appellant’s consenting relationship led to her being pregnant, out of wedlock. Due to “public criticism and pressure” in society towards unmarried single parents and because “her partner had refused to marry her at the last stage,” she wished to end her pregnancy.

Her demands were-

• Before July 15, 2022, a doctor must grant permission to have an abortion at any government centre or licenced private hospital. Since the pregnancy will have progressed to week 24 by July 15, 2022, we kindly ask for your consideration in passing the order by that date. As after the limitation time has passed, the order cannot be used.
• Pass the order to stop the respondents from bringing any legal action against the petitioner’s doctor and the doctors engaged in the abortion procedure.
• Pass the resolution ordering the state to cover unmarried women for up to 24 weeks under Section 3(2) clause (b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rule for the cessation of pregnancy.

The High Court of Delhi, however, rejected the appellant’s request for permission to end her pregnancy and to stop the respondents from taking any coercive action or pursuing criminal charges against the appellant or the Registered Medical Practitioner for doing so, noting that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 did not apply to the appellant’s case since she was not coerced into the procedure. The appellant filed an appeal with the Honourable Supreme Court after being upset by the High Court’s decision. Only after a Medical Board established by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) concluded that the pregnancy could be terminated without endangering the appellant’s life did the Supreme Court, by order dated July 21, 2022, modify the High Court’s decision and authorise the appellant to end her pregnancy.

ISSUES RAISED:

The issues raised on this case are-

• Does Section 3(2) clause (b)  of MTP Rules, 2003 violate the article 14 of The Indian Constitution?
• Should the victims of marital rape be allowed to do abortion without their husbands’ consent?
• Under Indian Constitution Article 21 of the Right to Life, are unmarried women entitled to end a pregnancy?
• Does clause c of Rule 3B of the MTP RULES and section 3(2)(b) of the MTP ACT cover unmarried women when it comes to abortions?[2]

CONTENTION OF PARTIES:

Arguments of Petitioner- Dr. Amit Mishra, an experienced attorney for the appellant, argued that the appellant was a single woman whose partner had turned down their engagement. Because she lacked the money to do so, she did not want to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth to the child outside of marriage. Her parents were farmers, and she did not have a job. Additionally, she stated that her client lacked the mental capacity needed to parent a child alone. She would suffer severe harm to her bodily and emotional health if she were forced to do so. The appellant was unprepared to deal with the stigma associated with unwed mothers in society. Unmarried women are excluded from their scope under Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, which are arbitrary and discriminatory. They violate Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against women based on their marital status.

Arguments from Respondent side- This Court has received competent assistance in interpreting Section 3(2) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B(c) of the MTP Rules from Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, a knowledgeable senior lawyer and Additional Solicitor General. She provided the following evidence to back up her claim that unmarried or single women in committed relationships are also covered by Rule 3B(c)- A statute’s text, its context, and the goal it intends to accomplish must all be taken into consideration while interpreting it. A statute’s Statement of Objects and Reasons must also serve as guidance when interpreting the law. Modern laws should be interpreted in light of how society has changed since they were enacted. Beneficial laws shouldn’t be construed literally; instead, they should have a purposeful interpretation. A subordinate law must implement the primary law it was passed under. If there are two alternative interpretations, the interpretation that is consistent with the statutory system should be used.

She also argued that Women have the freedom to have children and the right to autonomy over their bodies. And because the woman is entitled to maintenance in both forms of relationships, “live-in relationships” are equivalent to marriage. Additionally, the offspring of such a connection are granted the right to succeed their parents. The MTP Act is one of many national laws that does not distinguish between married and unmarried or single women. To counter the argument of the petitioner about Marital Status she stated that Rule 3B(c)’s definition of “change of marital status” should be read as “change in the status of a relationship” to include single, abandoned women too.

JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court earlier rejected the application filed by the petitioner. According to that bench As, the Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 is in effect, and this Court is limited in what it can do when exercising its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950[3]. It would be equivalent to permitting the writ petition itself to grant temporary relief right away. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 governs the termination of certain pregnancies by a registered medical practitioner. The Act’s Section 3 specifies the conditions under which registered medical practitioners may end pregnancies. According to Section 3(2) (a) of the Act, the Medical Practitioner may terminate the pregnancy as long as it is under 20 weeks old. The Act’s Section 3(2) (b) allows for termination in situations where the pregnancy is longer than 20 weeks but not longer than 24 weeks.

Reading Section 3(2)(b) of the Act reveals that only women who are protected by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, are subject to the abovementioned sub-section. The following are the details of Rule 3B of the 2003 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, which authorises termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks:

1. Rape victims
2. Minor Girls
3. Widowered or Divorced Woman in the meantime of pregnancy
4. Mentally unsound women
5. Women being pregnant in humanitarian situation

To counter this Judgment of High Court the petitioner moved to the Supreme Court. Lastly the 3 Judges bench of SC passes an ad interim order[4]–

1. They requested the Director of AIIMS Delhi to constitute a medical board to counter the situation.
2. A team of medical professionals at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences will perform the abortion in accordance with the request made before the High Court and reiterated in both the Special Leave Petition and the arguments made by the petitioner’s attorney before this Court if the Medical Board determines that doing so will not endanger the petitioner’s life.

It was concluded by the SC that the purpose of MTP Act Section 3(2)(b) read with Rule 3B is to permit abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks that are no longer desired due to a change in the women’s material circumstances. Given the objective, there is no reason to limit the application of Rule 3B to single or unmarried women who undergo a change in their material circumstances. If Rule 3B were to be interpreted strictly to apply to married women alone, this would constitute discrimination against unmarried women and would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The purpose of MTP Act Section 3(2)(b) read with Rule 3B is to permit abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks that are no longer desired due to a change in the women’s material circumstances. If Rule 3B were to be interpreted strictly to apply to married women alone, this would constitute discrimination against unmarried women and would be a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

CONCLUSION:

This situation is a prime illustration of the Indian judicial system’s liberal, progressive, and equitable approach. It’s important to recognise women’s rights and equality, but women also require special consideration and care when it comes to pregnancy, other benefits, and their freedom to have an abortion.The Supreme Court’s ruling in the current case has opened doors of hope for the criminalization of this act, which is increasingly in need of revision in Indian criminal laws to recognise marital rape as an offence. The Honourable Court did not yet make marital rape a crime and left it up to the Legislature to decide whether or not to do so.

References:

---

[1] X versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. , Civil Appeal No. 502 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12612 of 2022

[2] https://theamikusqriae.com/the-principal-secretary-health-and-family-welfare-department-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-anr/

[3] Judgment dated July 15, 2022 in WRIT PETITION(L) 12612 of 2022 (Delhi High Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182799007/

[4] Judgment dated July 21, 2022 in WRIT PETITION(L) 12612 of 2022 (The Supreme Court) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134729746/

This Case Analysis is Done by Dibyojit Mukherjee, DSNLU’ 28, an intern under Legal Vidhiya