CASE Commentary: X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Pranav Bhaskar, Presidency University Case Analysis Thu, Dec 07, 2023, at ,11:05 PM CASE Commentary: X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.AUTHOR- PRANAV BHASKAR, STUDENT AT SCHOOL OF LAW, PRESIDENCY UNIVERSITY CASE TITLE X Vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. CASE NO Civil Appeal No. 5802 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12612 of 2022) CITATION AIR 2022 SC 4917 DATE OF ORDER 29.09.2022 JURISDICTION THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CORAM Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice Mr. A S Bopanna and Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala. AUTHOR OF THE JUDGEMENT Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud APPELLANT X (To maintain the privacy of the women opting for termination of pregnancy) RESPONDENT The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors COUNCEL FOR PETITIONER Amit Mishra, Adv. and Rahul Sharma COUNCEL FOR RESPONDENT Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General and others. ACT & SECTIONS INVOLVED Section 3, Medical Termination Of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Rule 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021 INTRODUCTIONIn India, termination of pregnancies is to be done strictly in terms of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act. THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 which amended the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 establishes legal provisions governing the termination of pregnancies by registered medical practitioners. Under this Act, in section 3 practitioners are shielded from legal repercussions when conducting terminations in accordance with stipulated conditions, it further provide that for pregnancies up to twenty weeks, a single medical practitioner can authorize termination, while pregnancies beyond twenty weeks but not exceeding twenty-four weeks require the agreement of at least two practitioners. Termination is permissible if it poses a risk to the woman's life, threatens grave injury to her physical or mental health, or presents a substantial risk of serious abnormalities in the child. The Act considers the mental health aspect, presuming grave injury in cases of contraceptive failure or alleged rape. Additionally, rules under the Act outline qualifications for medical practitioners and establish a Medical Board to address foetal abnormalities. The central government has enacted the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021. The rules under the rule 3-b states the women eligible for termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks and does not expressly mention unmarried women. Hence the issue came up in the case of X vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. Whether Rule 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021 includes unmarried women, single women, or women without a partner under its ambit. FACTS The appellant in the instant case was an Indian citizen and a permanent resident of Manipur, who was residing in New Delhi. She, being the eldest among five siblings, belonged to a family of agriculturists. At the time when the Writ Petition was initiated before the High Court of Delhi, she was carrying a single intrauterine pregnancy with a gestational age of twenty-two weeks. This unmarried woman, aged about twenty-five years, had become pregnant as a result of a consensual relationship. She expressed her desire to terminate the pregnancy, citing that her partner had refused to marry her during the later stages. The appellant articulated her reluctance to carry the pregnancy to term due to concerns about societal stigma and harassment faced by unmarried single parents, especially women. Furthermore, she stated that, lacking a source of livelihood, she was not mentally prepared to raise and nurture the child as an unmarried mother. The appellant contended that the continuation of the unwanted pregnancy would involve a risk of grave and immense injury to her mental health. In the absence of support and facing challenging circumstances, she sought legal permission to terminate the pregnancy based on the aforementioned grounds. The appellant sought permission to terminate her pregnancy in terms of 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). The appellant instituted a Criminal Miscellaneous Application for grant of interim relief to terminate her pregnancy during the pendency of the Writ Petition. By its order, High Court observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act was inapplicable to the facts of the present case since the Appellant, being an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arose out of a consensual relationship, was not covered by any of the Sub-clauses of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules. The order of the High Court gave rise to the present appeal. In wake of the factual matrix the supreme court granted an interim relief to the appellant by allowing the termination of pregnancy and since the case involved a substantial question of law, the Supreme Court took it up for further consideration. CONTENTION OF THE PARTIESCONTENTION OF THE APELLANT The appellant submitted that she is an unmarried woman and faced a situation where her partner declined marriage, and due to financial constraints, she opted not to proceed with the pregnancy. She lacked employment, and her parents were farmers. That the was also not mentally prepared to raise a child by herself. If she was compelled to do so, it would cause grave injury to her physical and mental health. The appellant was not prepared to face the social stigma surrounding unwed mothers; and The appellant contested the constitutionality of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Rule 3B of the MTP Rules. She argued that these provisions, which exclude unmarried women, were arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating against women based on marital status. SUBMISSION BY THE STATEThe Additional Solicitor General made the following submissions in support of the argument that Rule 3B(c) extends to unmarried or single women who are in long-term relationships: The interpretation of legislation must be guided by the text and context of a statute as well as the object it seeks to achieve. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of a statute must also guide its interpretation; Modern legislations ought to be read in view of the evolution of society from the time of enactment. The literal construction of beneficial legislations must be avoided, and they ought to be given a purposive interpretation; A subordinate legislation should give effect to the statute it is enacted under. If two constructions are possible, the interpretation in consonance with the statutory scheme ought to be adopted; The term “change of marital status” in Rule 3B(c) ought to be interpreted as “change in the status of a relationship” to include unmarried or single women as well as women who are not divorced but are separated or have been deserted; “Live-in relationships” are equivalent to marital relationships because in both types of relationships, the woman is entitled to maintenance. Further, the children born out of such a relationship are vested with the right of succession. Various national legislations, including the MTP Act, do not make a distinction between married women and unmarried or single women; and Women enjoy the right to bodily integrity and autonomy, as well as reproductive rights. They are entitled to exercise decisional autonomy. ISSUEWhether Rule 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021 includes unmarried women, single women, or women without a partner under its ambit?LAW INVOLVEDRule 3B of Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021. The rule states as follows: “3-B. 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) ofsub-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);(d) women with physical disabilities [major disability as per criteria laid down under the Rights ofPersons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (49 of 2016)];(e) mentally ill women including mental retardation;(f) the foetal malformation that has substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped; andwomen with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency situations as may be declared by the Government.”JUDGEMENT OF THE COURTThe court allowing the appeal stated the following: Refereeing to the object and purpose of the act the court held that the MTP Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha with the intent to “liberalise some of the restrictions under section 312 of the Indian Penal Code.” The MTP Act was enacted by Parliament as a “health” measure, “humanitarian” measure and “eugenic” measure. The court emphasized that progressive laws should favor beneficiaries, particularly in the context of evolving familial structures. Acknowledging societal changes, the court urged an interpretation aligning with constitutional mandates and avoiding narrow constructions. Restricting Rule 3B narrowly could be deemed unconstitutional, denying unmarried women the right to safe abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, a right granted to married women, emphasizing the importance of equal protection under the law. Rule 3B(c) stipulates that a woman becomes eligible for the termination of her pregnancy under Section 3(2)(b) in cases where there is a change in her marital status, such as through widowhood or divorce. The provision emphasizes the importance of considering the impact of an ongoing unwanted pregnancy on the woman's physical or mental health, taking into account a range of social, economic, and cultural factors in her current or foreseeable environment, as delineated in Section 3(3). The underlying rationale of Rule 3B(c) closely aligns with that of Rule 3B(g), both addressing changes in a woman's material circumstances during the continuation of her pregnancy. This eligibility criterion is rooted in the broad acknowledgment that alterations in a woman's marital status often correspond to changes in her material circumstances. Notably, examples provided within Rule 3B(c), such as divorce or the death of a spouse, are illustrative and do not impose restrictions on interpretation, as evidenced by their placement in parentheses at the conclusion of the rule. The spectrum of material changes is diverse and includes scenarios where a woman is abandoned by her family or partner. Instances of separation or divorce may lead to a different and potentially less advantageous financial position, a matter of particular concern for women who have chosen homemaking, foregoing personal income. Moreover, such circumstances may render a woman unprepared for the responsibilities of single parenthood or co-parenting, especially following the death of a partner. Regarding the Section 3 of the amended act the court held after the MTP Amendment Act 2021, Explanation I provide that the anguish caused by a pregnancy (up to twenty weeks) arising from a failure of a contraceptive device used by “any woman or her partner” either for limiting the number of children or for preventing pregnancy can be presumed to constitute a grave injury to a woman’s mental health. By eliminating the word “married woman or her husband” from the scheme of the MTP Act, the legislature intended to clarify the scope of Section 3 and bring pregnancies which occur outside the institution of marriage within the protective umbrella of the law The court then examined the rules and held that recognizing that women may undergo various life changes beyond those explicitly outlined in Rule 3B(c), such as separation from a partner (Rule 3B(c)), detection of foetal abnormalities (Rule 3B(f)), or facing a disaster or emergency (Rule 3B(g)), the rule, along with Rule 3B(g) and Rule 3B(f), signifies an understanding that not all potential material changes are explicitly enumerated. From the legislative intent, the overall scheme, and the specified categories in Rule 3B, it is evident that the legislature did not intend to confine the benefits of Section 3(2)(b) and Rule 3B to limited situations but rather sought to extend these benefits to all women experiencing a change in material circumstances. Crucially, the right to choose termination of pregnancy, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, applies irrespective of a woman's marital status. Whether a pregnancy is desired and shared by both partners or unwanted, burdening the woman's mental and physical health, Article 21 underscores the woman's sole right over her body and her ultimate decision-making authority regarding abortion. In the context of abortion, the right to dignity involves recognizing the competence and authority of every woman to make reproductive decisions, including the decision to terminate a pregnancy. The objective of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, coupled with Rule 3B, is to facilitate abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks in cases where pregnancies are unwanted due to changes in the material circumstances of women. A narrow interpretation limited to married women would introduce discrimination against unmarried women, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, which mandates equal protection under the law. Such discrimination, allowing married women access to abortion during the specified period while denying unmarried or single pregnant women the same right, contradicts the spirit of Article 14. The law should not perpetuate narrow patriarchal principles about "permissible sex" and create invidious classifications based on personal circumstances. The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 equally empower unmarried women to exercise their choice regarding whether or not to bear a child, placing them on a similar legal footing as married women. The court stated that MTP Act explicitly recognizes the reproductive autonomy of every pregnant woman, encompassing the right to choose medical intervention for pregnancy termination. Implicit in this right is the pregnant woman's entitlement to access healthcare facilities to achieve the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. Reproductive health, encompassing safe, effective, and affordable family planning methods, as well as the ability to undergo a safe pregnancy, is inseparable from the right to reproductive autonomy. CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of X vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, reaffirms the constitutional right to abortion as protected under Article 21. By interpreting Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules 2021 inclusively, the Court ensures that unmarried women, single women, and those without partners have equal access to safe and legal abortion services. The judgment emphasizes the principles of autonomy, dignity, and equality, setting a progressive precedent for reproductive rights in India. It highlights the imperative to align laws with international standards, emphasizing the need for information dissemination, access to contraceptives, and non-discriminatory medical facilities to uphold the fundamental right to bodily autonomy and dignity.