X versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 686 · Decided: 29-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 34 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
686
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
X
v.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD,
A. S. BOPANNA AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act,2021) – s.
3(2)(b) – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules,2003 (Amended
by Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021) –
Rule 3B – Constitution of India – Article 14, 21 – The Interpretation
of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules – Unmarried or single women fall
within the ambit of Rule 3B – Purpose and object – Right to
reproductive autonomy – Right to dignity – Appellant instituted a
writ petition before the High Court and submitted that appellant
was in a consensual relationship and had become pregnant – As
her partner had refused to marry her and in absence of source of
livelihood, she would be unable to nurture a child as an unmarried
mother – Appellant also instituted a Criminal Miscellaneous
Application for grant of interim relief to terminate her pregnancy
during the pendency of the Writ Petition – High Court declined to
grant relief sought and observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP
Act was inapplicable and since the appellant, being an unmarried
woman, was not covered by any of the sub-clauses of Rule 3B of
the MTP Rules – Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against
the order of High Court and Supreme Court by ad interim order
modified the order of the High court and permitted the appellant to
terminate her pregnancy – As the case involved substantial question
of law the writ petition before the High Court was transferred to
Supreme Court – The issue involved is the interpretation of Rule 3B
of the MTP Rules – Held: In s.3 of the MTP Amendment Act the
words used are “Any women or her partner”, by eliminating the
words (which existed before the amendment) “married women or
her husband” the legislature intended to clarify the scope of s.3 –
Further held, the meaning of the words “sexual assault” or “rape”
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 686
686
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
687
in Rule 3B(a) includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape
(Marital rape) committed on his wife but solely for the purposes of
the MTP Act – Unmarried women have right to access safe and
legal abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, if they face
a change in their material circumstances, similar to married 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 – In view of the object, there is no rationale for
excluding unmarried or single women (who face a change in their
material circumstances) from the ambit of Rule 3B.
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act,2021 ) – Object
and purpose – Discussed.
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules,2003 (Amended by
Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021) – Rule
3B – Purposive Interpretation of.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Despite the enactment of the MTP Act, a number
of hurdles continue to prevent full access to safe and legal
abortions, pushing women to avail of clandestine, unsafe abortions.
These barriers include insufficient infrastructural facilities, a lack
of awareness, social stigma, and failure to ensure confidential
care. In some situations, unmarried women face particular barriers
due to gender stereotypes about women’s sexual autonomy
outside marriage. These barriers are a serious impediment and
deter single women from seeking safe and legal abortions. Such
barriers may contribute to a delay in accessing abortion services
or a complete denial of such services, consequently negating
women’s right to reproductive autonomy. [Para 18][709-B-C]
2. Although the actions of RMPs done in good faith under
the MTP Act are protected under Section 8, the spectre of
criminalization casts a chilling effect on them. The fear faced by
RMPs of prosecution under the penal provisions often leads to
unnecessary delays. It is a common yet lamentable practice for
RMPs to insist on compliance with extra-legal conditions such
as consent from the woman’s family, documentary proofs, or
X v. PR. SECY., HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPTT., GNCT
DELHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
judicial authorisation. If the woman fails

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.