X versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 21-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
X
v.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12612 of 2022)
JULY 21, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, SURYA KANT
AND A S BOPANNA, JJ.]
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 – s. 3(2)(b), Rule
3B – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 – Termination
of pregnancy of an unmarried woman – Petitioner was in a
consensual relationship and in month of June 2022 she learnt that
she was pregnant (22 weeks) – Petitioner stated that in absence of
source of livelihood, she would be unable to nurture a child –
Petitioner deserted by her partner – She decided to terminate the
pregnancy – Writ petition before the High Court – High Court
declined to grant relief – On appeal, held: Letting the petitioner
suffer from an unwanted pregnancy would be contrary to the intent
of law – Petitioner should not be denied the benefit of MTP Act on
the ground that she is unmarried women – Distinction between
married and unmarried women does not bear nexus to the basic
purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by parliament
especially through the provisions of Explanation 1 to s.3 of the
MTP Act – Ad Interim order to carry out abortion safely was passed
– Ad interim direction of High Court stands modified.
Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009)
9 SCC 1 : [2009] 13 SCR 989; Justice K.S. Puttaswamy
(Retd.) and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2017) 10
SCC 1 : [2017] 10 SCR 569,  (2016) SCC OnLine Bom
8426; S Khusboo v. Kanniammal (2010) 5 SCC 600 :
[2010] 5 SCR 322 – relied on.
High Court on its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra
2017 Cri LJ 218 (Bom HC) – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2009] 13 SCR 989           relied on
Para 19
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 246
246
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
247
[2017] 10 SCR 569          relied on
Para 19
[ 2010] 5 SCR 322
relied on
Para 20
EXTRA-ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12612 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.07.2022 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in C. M. Application No.30708 of 2022 in W. P.
(C) 10602 of 2022.
Dr. Amit Mishra, Rahul Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Deepabali Datta, Ketan Paul,
Aman Sharma, B. L. N. Shibani, G. S. Makker, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 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.
1 “MTP Act”
2 “MTP Rules”
X v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
DEPARTMENT
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
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 ce
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.