The Bombay High Court has disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act and Rules regarding the exclusion of unmarried women from terminating pregnancies between 20 to 24 weeks. Relying on the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement, the Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra to ensure wide circulation of the law that allows unmarried women to access abortion services on par with married women.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by a 26-year-old unmarried woman who approached the High Court when her pregnancy had advanced to 22 weeks. The petitioner stated that she was carrying an unwanted pregnancy resulting from the failure of a contraceptive device. As an unwed mother, she apprehended “social stigma” and a lack of family support.
Initially, by an order dated August 23, 2022, the High Court had already permitted the petitioner to terminate the pregnancy based on a report by the expert Committee of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals. However, the Court kept the petition pending to adjudicate the wider challenge raised by the petitioner regarding the validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021) and Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003.
Legal Challenge and Arguments
The petitioner contended that the exclusion of unmarried and single women from the categories eligible for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner argued that Rule 3-B, introduced in 2021, specified categories of women eligible for termination between 20 and 24 weeks, such as survivors of sexual assault, minors, women with physical disabilities, and mentally ill women. However, it did not explicitly include unmarried women facing a change in material circumstances. The petitioner submitted that denying unwed/single women this right infringed upon their right to live with dignity and subjected them to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
During the pendency of the petition, the Counsel for the Union of India placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. (2023) 9 SCC 433.
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had already addressed the exact issue raised by the petitioner. The Apex Court had held that the interpretation of subordinate legislation must be consistent with the enabling Act. The High Court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation that the “object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3-B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women.”
Reproducing the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the High Court noted:
“A narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution… The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes ‘permissible sex’…”
The Court reiterated that 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 to a married woman.
Decision and Directions
The Bench observed that in light of the Supreme Court’s purposive interpretation of Rule 3-B, the issue raised in the petition had been “put to rest.”
Addressing the petitioner’s concern that women similarly situated should not be forced to knock on the doors of the Court repeatedly, the High Court invoked Article 144 of the Constitution, stating that every authority in India is duty-bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Disposing of the petition, the Court issued the following direction:
“However, we request the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra to have wide circulation of the said decision of the Apex Court to all those functionaries who are involved in implementation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Rules.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: ABC vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
- Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9782 of 2022
- Coram: Justice Bharati Dangre & Justice Manjusha Deshpande
- Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. Kranti L. C.
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. P. Thakur (AGP), Ms. Punima Awasthi (UoI)
