Introduction

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the right of an unmarried woman to exercise her reproductive autonomy.   
• This judgment was delivered by a 3-judge bench comprising of Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna and Justice JB Pardiwala. 

Facts  

• The Appellant in this case is a resident of Manipur, currently residing in New Delhi. 
• At the time when the petition for abortion was filed in the Delhi High Court the appellant was carrying a single intrauterine pregnancy of about 22 weeks. 
• Teh Appellant was an unmarried woman who got pregnant as a result of consensual relationship. 
• She wished to terminate the pregnancy as her partner refused to marry her at the last stage. 
• The appellant sought termination of pregnancy in terms of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) and Rule 3B (c) of MTP Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2021). 
• The Delhi High Court refused the petition for abortion on the ground that the Act does not cover unmarried woman as in the present case. 
• The case was transferred to the Supreme Court as the case involved a substantial question of law.

Issue Involved  

• Whether an unmarried can ask for termination of pregnancy under Section 3 (2) (b) of MTP Act read with Rule 3B of MTP Rules due to change in the material circumstances of the woman? 

Observations 

• Object of MTP Amendment, 2021: 
  • The Supreme Court analyzed the object behind the MTP Amendment, 2021. It was observed that the MTP Amendment, 2021 intends to extend the benefit of the statute to all women, including single and unmarried women. 
  • It is to be noted that the 2021 Amendment has replaced the words “married woman or her husband” with the words “any woman or her partner”. 
  • By doing the above the Legislature has aimed to bring the pregnancies that occur outside the institution of marriage within the protective umbrella of law. 
  • Thus, after the amendment of 2021 the scheme of MTP Act does not make a distinction between married and unmarried woman for the purpose of medical termination of pregnancies.
• Construction of Rule 3B of MTP Rules: 
  • The common thread flowing through the different categories of women mentioned in Rule 3B is that they all are women in a unique and often difficult circumstance with respect to her physical, mental or financial state. 
  • The Court further made an observation in this case regarding marital rape. The Court held that the meaning of the word “rape” in Rule 3B (a) includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape committed on his wife. 
  • Thus, the Court held that solely for the purposes of MTP Act rape must be read as including marital rape.
• Change in Marital Status:
  • Rule 3B (c) is based on the recognition of the fact that change in marital status of a woman leads to a change in her material circumstances. 
  • A change in material circumstance may arise when a married woman divorces her husband or when her husband dies. These are provided in brackets as examples and are illustrative.  
  • If the benefit under Rule 3B (c) is interpreted to include only married woman, it would create an artificial distinction between married and unmarried women. The benefits in law extend equally to both married and unmarried women. 
  • Thus, the benefit of Rule 3B must extend to all women who undergo material change in circumstance.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and MTP Act, 1971: 
  • The Court observed that it is important to include the adolescents and young woman within the ambit of Rule 3B of MTP Rules. 
  • The Court also clarified that upon the request of the minor and their guardians only, the Registered Medical Practitioner is exempted from disclosure of identity and other personal information required in a criminal proceeding to prevent any conflict between statutory obligation of an RMP under POCSO and rights of privacy and reproductive autonomy of the minor under Art. 21 of the Constitution
• Right of reproductive autonomy and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI): 
  • In the case of KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) the Court held that “woman’s freedom of choice whether to bear a child or abort her pregnancy are areas which fall in the realm of privacy.”  
  • The Court has reiterated in the above mentioned case that statutory right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy under the MTP Act is relatable to the the constitutional right to make reproductive choices under Article 21 of the COI. 
  • Article 21 of the Constitution recognizes and protects the right of a woman to undergo termination of pregnancy if her mental or physical health is at stake. Importantly, it is the woman alone who has the right over her body and is the ultimate decisionmaker on the question of whether she wants to undergo an abortion.
• Purposive Interpretation of Rule 3B: 
  • The Court observed that a narrow interpretation that runs counter to the object of the constitutional mandate must be avoided. 
  • It was reiterated that the object of Section 3 (2)(b) of MTP Act read with Rule 3B of MTP Rules is to provide for right to abortion to women between 20 and 24 weeks when the pregnancy has become unwanted due to material change in the circumstances of the woman.   
  • In view of the above object a narrow interpretation of Rule 3B limited only to married women would render the provision discriminatory towards the unmarried woman and hence discriminatory under Article 14 of COI.

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which gives the right of termination of pregnancy to the unmarried woman on the ground of change in circumstances under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules. 
• If the above interpretation is rejected it would result in creating an artificial distinction between a married and unmarried woman which would be violative of Article 14 of the COI.  

[Original Judgment]