Case Title: X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt of NCT Of Delhi
The Supreme Court observed that a woman does not need any consent from her family to terminate her pregnancy, not even an unmarried woman as all women are entitled to exercise their right to safe and legal abortions. There is no rationale behind excluding unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3B of MTP Rules which mentions the categories of women who can seek abortion of pregnancy in the term 20-24 weeks.
In India, termination of pregnancies is to be done strictly in terms of the MTP Act. The preamble of the MTP Act states that it is an “Act to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” The MTP Act specifies the requirements to be fulfilled for terminating a pregnancy, including the persons who are competent to perform the termination procedure, circumstances when abortion is permissible, and places where the procedure may be performed.
The Court, however, observed that giving narrow interpretations to relevant provisions of the statute would be unfair and in contravention of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
The question that was before the Hon’ble Bench was whether Rule 3B includes unmarried women, single women, or women without a partner under its ambit. The answer may be discerned by imparting a purposive interpretation to Rule 3B. It was observed the cardinal principle of the construction of statutes is to identify the intention of the legislature and the true legal meaning of the enactment. The intention of the legislature is derived by considering the meaning of the words used in the statute, with a view to understanding the purpose or object of the enactment, the mischief, and its corresponding remedy that the enactment is designed to actualise. The purposive construction of the provision must be “illumined by the goal, though guided by the word”.
It was categorically held by the Bench that “The object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women. 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. A narrow interpretation of Rule 3B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 requires the state to refrain from denying to any person equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14. The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes “permissible sex”, which creates invidious classifications and excludes groups based on their personal circumstances. The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the right of choice on whether or not to bear a child, on a similar footing of a married woman.”