X v.

Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt of NCT Delhi

Case Name X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare,

Govt of NCT Delhi
Citation Special Leave Petition (Civil) No 12612 of 2022
Case Number Civil Appeal No. 502
of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12612 of 2022)
Date of Judgment Sept 29, 2022
Court Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Type SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No 12612 of 2022
Petitioner Mrs X
Respondent Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Govt
of NCT Delhi
Bench Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice S. Bopanna
Justice B. Pardiwala
Referred Law The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

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 Judgment1 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

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
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
2
https://theamikusqriae.com/the-principal-secretary-health-and-family-welfare-department-govt-of-nct-of-
delhi-anr/
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,
19503. 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.

3
Judgment dated July 15, 2022 in WRIT PETITION(L) 12612 of 2022 (Delhi High Court)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182799007/
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.
4
Judgment dated July 21, 2022 in WRIT PETITION(L) 12612 of 2022 (The Supreme Court)
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134729746/
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.

This Case Analysis is Done by Dibyojit Mukherjee, DSNLU’ 28