[ad_1]
Introduction:
The case of X vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of NCT and another is a landmark case in the field of abortion laws. This particular case extended the permission given for the abortion of a fetus over the gestational age of 24 weeks to unmarried women as well. The matter transitioned from the Delhi High Court to the Supreme Court of India. This case is a good example of how provisions in the legislation should be interpreted in accordance with the changing times and objective behind bringing that legislation. This case is important in terms of reinforcing the women’s right to reproductive autonomy and body autonomy under Article 21 of The Indian Constitution.
Facts of the case :
- The appellant is an unmarried woman aged 25 years living in NCT Delhi who is pregnant out of the consensual relationship. following her partner’s refusal to marry her, she wants to end her pregnancy at the gestational age of 22 weeks. She has stated that she doesn’t want to carry her pregnancy due to social stigma and harassment faced by unmarried single parents, especially women.
- She had earlier instituted a writ petition in the Delhi High Court to seek permission for the termination of pregnancy at the gestational age of 22 weeks.
- The appellant requested permission to terminate her pregnancy according to Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 19712 and Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 20033 (as amended on 12 October 2021). While the petition was still pending she instituted Criminal Miscellaneous Application for getting interim relief for termination of pregnancy.
- The high court through its order on 15 July,2025 stated that only unmarried women are included Rule 3B(c) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003. It also refused to give another relief stating that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act is not applicable in the present case as the woman in question is unmarried and pregnancy was out of consensual relationship which is not covered under under Rule 3B of the MTP Rules.
Issues raised :
- Are Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules arbitrary and discriminatory as the discriminate on the basis of marital status of women which violates article 14 of the Indian Constitution ?
- How should statutes made in the previous era be enacted to give them effect in the modern era ?
Judgement of the Supreme Court :
While addressing the key issue as to whether Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules are arbitrary and discriminatory as they discriminate against women on marital status, the court held that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules is discriminatory. Every woman whether married or unmarried has the right to reproductive autonomy, the right to live a dignified life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Rule 3B violates Article 14 as well as there is discrimination on the grounds of whether the woman is married or not.
In regards to the right to reproductive autonomy, the court further held that ‘the ambit of reproductive rights is not restricted to the right of women to have or not have children. It also includes the constellation of freedoms and entitlements that enable a woman to decide freely on all matters relating to her sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive rights include the right to access education and information about contraception and sexual health, the right to decide whether and what type of contraceptives to use, the right to choose whether and when to have children, the right to choose the number of children, the right to access safe and legal abortions, and the right to reproductive healthcare.’ Along with that right to reproductive autonomy is closely linked with the right to bodily autonomy.
The court cited the case of K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India to remind that the right to privacy as upheld under Article 21 of the Indian constitution also enables individuals to retain and exercise autonomy over the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual was defined as “the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life.”
The Court also cited the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration to state that this court has already recognized the right to reproductive autonomy in this case.
While stating about the Right to dignity the Court stated that: “The right to dignity encapsulates the right of every individual to be treated as a self-governing entity having intrinsic value. It means that every human being possesses dignity merely by being a human, and can make self-defining and self-determining choices. Dignity has been recognized as a core component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. If women with unwanted pregnancies are forced to carry their pregnancies to term, the state would be stripping them of the right to determine the immediate and long-term path their lives would take. Depriving women of autonomy not only over their bodies but also over their lives would be an affront to their dignity. The right to choose for oneself – be it as significant as choosing the course of one’s life or as mundane as one’s day-to-day activities – forms a part of the right to dignity.”
When it comes to the issue of the interpretation of old statutes in the current period the court stated that identification of the true intention of legislature and the true legal meaning of enactment is the cardinal principle in the interpretation of statute. In Kanailal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhu Khan, Gajendragadkar, J. opined that “the first and primary rule of construction is that the intention of the Legislature must be found in the words used by the Legislature itself.” But when the words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, they should be construed in light of the object and purpose of the enactment. The construction which upholds the constitutional values should be chosen over the one which does not even though that is the new construction.
Relevance in the field of law:
This judgement marks an important issue concerning abortion laws in the case of unmarried or single women. Even though after the 2021 amendment in the MTP Act unmarried women were given the right to abort a fetus till the gestational age of 20 weeks the MTP Rule 3B which recognizes exceptional cases of abortion at the gestational age of 24 weeks didn’t include unmarried and single women. As an effect of this judgement now Rule 3B also includes unmarried and single women.
Along with that the difficulties in lawful abortion are once again discussed through this judgement. Once again, the right to reproductive autonomy of women along with the right to live with dignity as in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution were discussed.
This judgement is a step towards women’s empowerment as this judgment brings unmarried and single women to par with married women concerning all types of abortions and unwanted pregnancies.
This Judgement is also important as it discusses the problems faced by women in legal abortion and why women in India still tend towards unlawful abortions harming their health.
Apart from the rights discussed in the judgment this judgement also pays attention to changes in familial conditions as stated in the case of Deepika Singh vs Central Administrative Tribunal by the Supreme Court itself. It states that while interpreting the phrase change in the societal condition of women as in Rule 3B of MTP Rules it should be interpreted considering the new forms of familial relationships including live-in-relationships, queer relationships, etc. which might cause a change in that woman’s societal condition.
Personal Opinion:
In my opinion, this case is a brilliant example of how the old laws should be interpreted and amended as per the current needs of society. This case establishes equality in nationwide abortion laws.
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with the right to equality and right to life as led by articles 14 and 21 of The Indian constitution respectively. This judgement brings all women to par in terms of abortion laws. This will help unmarried women to live a dignified life apart from social stigma and harassment of premarital pregnancy.
Conclusion :
This case of X vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Department, Govt. of NCT and another is a landmark judgement in the field of laws related to women. It helps in understanding the situation of women in society due to social stigmas. The courts interpretation of law is progressive which will help in the interpretation of other legislations as well. This judgement upholds the values such as dignity, equality and autonomy of women.
Ketaki Limaye
Indian Law Society (ILS) Law College, Pune
[ad_2]
Source link