X .... Versus The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department

X .... Versus The Principal Secretary Health and Family Welfare Department 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No 12612 of 2022

X .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Principal Secretary

Health and Family Welfare Department & Anr ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Issue notice.

2 Ms Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General, with Mr G S Makker, AOR,

accepts notice on behalf of the second respondent.

3 We have heard Dr Amit Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

We have requested Ms Aishwarya Bhati to assist the Court on the interpretative

aspects of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 19711

 and

Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 20032

.

4 The petitioner is a permanent resident of Manipur and is stated to be currently

residing in Delhi. The petitioner has averred that she was in a consensual

1 “MTP Act”

2 “MTP Rules”

2

relationship and, in the month of June 2022 she learnt that she was pregnant. On

5 July 2022, an ultrasound scan revealed a single intrauterine pregnancy of a

term of twenty-two weeks. The petitioner decided to terminate the pregnancy;

her relationship has failed. She has stated that she is the eldest amongst five

siblings and her parents are agriculturists. The petitioner has stated that she

holds a BA degree and, in the absence of a source of livelihood, she would be

unable to raise and nurture a child. She moved a writ petition before the High

Court of Delhi.

5 The Division Bench of the High Court, by an order dated 15 July 2022, issued

notice restricted only to prayer C of the petition, in which the petitioner has

sought a direction for the inclusion of an unmarried woman within the ambit of

Rule 3B of the MTP Rules for the termination of pregnancy in terms of the

provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the MTP Act.

6 No notice has been issued by the High Court on prayer A or prayer B of the

petition which effectively stand rejected.

7 For convenience of reference, prayers A, B and C of the petition before the High

Court are extracted below:

“A. Permit the Petitioner to terminate her ongoing

pregnancy through registered medical practitioners at

any approved private or government center or

Hospital before 15.07.2022 as her relief will be

infructuous after that as the pregnancy will be of

around 24 Weeks by that time;

B. Restrain the Respondent from taking any coercive

action or criminal proceedings against the Petitioner

or any Registered Medical Practitioner terminating the

pregnancy of the petitioner at any approved private

center or hospital registered by Govt NCT of Delhi;

C. Direct the Respondent to include unmarried woman

also within the ambit of the Rule 3B of the Medical

Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 (as amended on

3

21.10.2021) for termination of pregnancy under

clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 3 of the MTP Act,

for a period of up to twenty-four weeks;

The petitioner has completed 24 weeks of her pregnancy on 18 July 2022.

8 Section 3 of the MTP Act reads as follows:

“3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered

medical practitioners. -

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal

Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall

not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under

any other law for the time being in force, if any

pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the

provisions of this Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), a pregnancy

may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner,

—

(a) where the length of the pregnancy does not

exceed twenty weeks, if such medical practitioner

is, or

(b) where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twenty

weeks but does not exceed twenty-four weeks in

case of such category of woman as may be

prescribed by rules made under this Act, if not less

than two registered medical practitioners are, of

the opinion, formed in good faith, that—

(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a

risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave

injury to her physical or mental health; or

(ii) there is a substantial risk that if the child were

born, it would suffer from any serious physical or

mental abnormality.

Explanation 1.—For the purposes of clause (a), where

any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device

or method used by any woman or her partner for the

purpose of limiting the number of children or preventing

pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy may

be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental

health of the pregnant woman.

Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clauses (a) and (b),

4

where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman

to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by the

pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury

to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

(2A) The norms for the registered medical practitioner whose

opinion is required for termination of pregnancy at

different gestational age shall be such as may be

prescribed by rules made under this Act.

(2B) The provisions of sub-section (2) relating to the length of

the pregnancy shall not apply to the termination of

pregnancy by the medical practitioner where such

termination is necessitated by the diagnosis of any of the

substantial foetal abnormalities diagnosed by a Medical

Board.

(2C) Every State Government or Union territory, as the case

may be, shall, by notification in the Official Gazette,

constitute a Board to be called a Medical Board for the

purposes of this Act to exercise such powers and

functions as may be prescribed by rules made under this

Act.

(2D) The Medical Board shall consist of the following,

namely:—

(a) a Gynaecologist;

(b) a Paediatrician;

(c) a Radiologist or Sonologist; and

(d) such other number of members as may be notified

in the Official Gazette by the State Government or

Union territory, as the case may be.

(3) In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy

would involve such risk of injury to the health as is

mentioned in sub-section (2), account may be taken of

the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable

environment.

(4) (a) No pregnancy of a woman, who has not attained the age

of eighteen years, or, who having attained the age of

eighteen years, is a mentally ill person, shall be

terminated except with the consent in writing of her

guardian.

(b) Save as otherwise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy

shall be terminated except with the consent of the

5

pregnant woman.”

9 Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 permits the termination of pregnancy

where the length of pregnancy does not exceed twenty weeks. Clause (b)

permits termination where the length of pregnancy exceeds twenty weeks but

does not exceed twenty four weeks for such categories of women “as may be

prescribed by Rules made under this Act”. However, an opinion must be formed

by not less than two registered medical practitioners that inter alia “the

continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant

woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health”.

10 Explanation 1 to Section 3 stipulates that for the purpose of clause (a), where a

pregnancy has occurred as a result of a failure of any device or method used by

any woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or

preventing pregnancy, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed

to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

Explanation 1 evidently qualifies clause (a) but not clause (b).

11 Rule 3B of the MTP Rules has been made in pursuance of the provisions of clause

(b) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the MTP Act. Rule 3B is as follows:

“3B. Women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to

twenty-four weeks.- The following categories of

women shall be considered eligible for termination of

pregnancy under clause (b) of sub-section(2) section 3

of the Act, for a period of up to twenty-four weeks,

namely:-

(a) survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest;

(b) minors;

(c) change of marital status during the ongoing

pregnancy (widowhood and divorce);

6

(d) women with physical disabilities [major disability

as per criteria laid down under the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)];

(e) mentally ill women including mental retardation;

(f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk

of being imcompatible with life or if the child is

born it may suffer from such physical or mental

abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; and

(g) women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings

or disaster or emergency situations as may be

declared by the Government.”

12 The High Court held that since the petitioner is an unmarried woman whose

pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, her case is “clearly not

covered” by any of the above clauses of Rule 3B and, as a consequence, Section

3(2)(b) is not applicable.

13 On the submission that Rule 3B, insofar as it excludes an unmarried woman, is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the High Court has issued notice on the

writ petition. However, it held that as of the date of its order, it was not open to

itto traverse beyond the provisions of Rule 3B in the exercise of the jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution.

14 Prima facie, quite apart from the issue of constitutionality which has been

addressed before the High Court, it appears that the High Court has taken an

unduly restrictive view of the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 3B. Clause (c)

speaks of a change of marital status during an ongoing pregnancy and is

followed in parenthesis by the words “widowhood and divorce”. The expression

“change of marital status” should be given a purposive rather than a restrictive

interpretation. The expressions “widowhood and divorce” need not be construed

to be exhaustive of the category which precedes it.

7

15 The fundamental principle of statutory interpretation is that the words of a

statute must be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and

ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act and the intent of the

legislature. Parliament by amending the MTP Act through Act 8 of 2021 intended

to include unmarried women and single women within the ambit of the Act. This

is evident from the replacement of the word ‘husband’ with ‘partner’ in

Explanation I of Section 3(2) of the Act.

16 Explanation 1 expressly contemplates a situation involving an unwanted

pregnancy caused as a result of the failure of any device or method used by a

woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children or

preventing pregnancy. The Parliamentary intent, therefore, is clearly not to

confine the beneficial provisions of the MTP Act only to a situation involving a

matrimonial relationship. On the contrary, a reference to the expression “any

woman or her partner” would indicate that a broad meaning and intent has been

intended to be ascribed by Parliament. The statute has recognized the

reproductive choice of a woman and her bodily integrity and autonomy. Both

these rights embody the notion that a choice must inhere in a woman on

whether or not to bear a child. In recognizing the right the legislature has not

intended to make a distinction between a married and unmarried woman, in her

ability to make a decision on whether or not to bear the child. These rights, it

must be underscored, are in consonance with the provisions of Article 21 of the

Constitution.

17 In this case, the petitioner submits that she was deserted by her partner at the

last stage in June 2022 causing her immense mental agony, trauma, and

physical suffering. Excluding unmarried women and single women from the

ambit of the statute goes against the purpose of the legislation. The Statement

of Objects and Reasons of the MTP Act seeks to “liberalise certain existing

8

provisions relating to termination of pregnancy … (1) as a health measure—

when there is danger to the life or risk to physical or mental health of the

woman”.

18 A comparison between the two provisions before and after the 2021 amendment

is tabulated below:

MTP, 1971 MTP Amendment 2021

Explanation 2: Where any

pregnancy occurs as a result of

failure of any device or method

used by any married woman or

her husband for the purpose

of limiting the number of

children, the anguish caused by

such unwanted pregnancy may be

presumed to constitute a grave

injury to the mental health of the

pregnant woman.

Explanation 1: For the purposes of clause

(a), where any pregnancy occurs as a result

of failure of any device or method used by

any woman or her partner for the

purpose of limiting the number of

children or preventing pregnancy, the

anguish caused by such pregnancy may be

presumed to constitute a grave injury to the

mental health of the pregnant woman.

The above table shows that the phrase ‘married woman’ was replaced by ‘any

woman’ and the word ‘husband’ was replaced by ‘partner’. But evidently, there

is a gap in the law : while Section 3 travels beyond conventional relationships

based on marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage a situation

involving unmarried women, but recognizes other categories of women such as

divorcees, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of

sexual assault or rape. There is no basis to deny unmarried women the right to

medically terminate the pregnancy, when the same choice is available to other

categories of women.

19 A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal

liberty under Article 21 of Constitution. She has a sacrosanct right to bodily

integrity. In Suchita Srivastava v Chandigarh Administration3

, this Court

has recognized that a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy is a dimension of

3 (2009) 9 SCC 1

9

Article 21 of the Constitution:

“22. There is no doubt that a woman's right to make

reproductive choices is also a dimension of “personal

liberty” as understood under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that

reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as

well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial

consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity

and bodily integrity should be respected. This means

that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the

exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right

to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively

the insistence on use of contraceptive methods.”

 In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr v. Union of India and Ors,

4

 the

decision of a woman to procreate or abstain from procreating has been recognized

as a facet of her right to lead a life with dignity and the right to privacy under

Article 21 of the Constitution:

“298. [p]rivacy of the body entitles an individual to the

integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one’s mental integrity and privacy

entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of selfdetermination. When these guarantees intersect with

gender, they create a private space which protects all

those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The

family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are

all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the

privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to

determine how freedom shall be exercised.”

The Bombay High Court in High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra,

5

 observed as follows:

“14. A woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is

not a frivolous one. Abortion is often the only way out

of a very difficult situation for a woman. An abortion is

a carefully considered decision taken by a woman who

fears that the welfare of the child she already has, and

of other members of the household that she is obliged

to care for with limited financial and other resources,

4 (2017) 10 SCC 1

5 2017 Cri LJ 218 (Bom HC); (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 8426

10

may be compromised by the birth of another child.

These are decisions taken by responsible women who

have few other options. They are women who would

ideally have preferred to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but were unable to do so. If a woman does

not want to continue with the pregnancy, then

forcing her to do so represents a violation of the

woman’s bodily integrity and aggravates her

mental trauma which would be deleterious to

her mental health”

(Emphasis Supplied)

20 Denying an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion violates her personal

autonomy and freedom. Live-in relationships have been recognized by this Court.

In S Khusboo v. Kanniammal,6

 this Court observed that criminal law should

not be weaponized to interfere with the domain of personal autonomy. It was observed:

“46. While there can be no doubt that in India,

marriage is an important social institution, we must

also keep our minds open to the fact that there are

certain individuals or groups who do not hold the

same view. To be sure, there are some indigenous

groups within our country wherein sexual relations

outside the marital setting are accepted as a normal

occurrence. Even in the societal mainstream,

there are a significant number of people who

see nothing wrong in engaging in premarital

sex. Notions of social morality are inherently

subjective and the criminal law cannot be used

as a means to unduly interfere with the domain

of personal autonomy. Morality and criminality

are not co-extensive.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

21 On the above premises, we are inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petition.

In the meantime, we are of the view that allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy would be contrary to the intent of the law enacted by Parliament. Moreover, allowing the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy, on a proper

6 (2010) 5 SCC 600.

11

interpretation of the statute, prima facie, falls within the ambit of the statute and

the petitioner should not be denied the benefit on the ground that she is an unmarried woman. The distinction between a married and unmarried woman does

not bear a nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved

by Parliament which is conveyed specifically by the provisions of Explanation 1

to Section 3 of the Act. The petitioner had moved the High Court before she had

completed 24 weeks of pregnancy. The delay in the judicial process cannot work

to her prejudice.

22 In the above background, we pass the following ad interim order:

(i) We request the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi

to constitute a Medical Board in terms of the provisions of Section 3(2D) of

the Act, extracted in the earlier part of this order, during the course of 22

July 2022; and

(ii) In the event that the Medical Board concludes that the fetus can be

aborted without danger to the life of the petitioner, a team of doctors at

the All India Institute of Medical Sciences shall carry out the abortion in

terms of the request which has been made before the High Court and

which has been reiterated both in the Special Leave Petition and in the

course of the submissions before this Court by counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner. Before doing so the wishes of the petitioner shall

be ascertained again and her written consent obtained after due

verification of identity.

23 The report shall be furnished to this Court after compliance with this order within

a period of one week thereafter.

12

24 For considering the report of the Medical Board, list the Special Leave Petition on

2 August 2022.

25 The ad interim direction of the High Court of Delhi declining to grant interim

relief shall stand modified in the above terms.

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.

 [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.

 [Surya Kant]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.

 [A S Bopanna]

New Delhi;

July 21, 2022

-S-