X vs. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Background
The appellant, a 25-year-old unmarried woman, became pregnant through a consensual relationship, but her partner refused to marry her. Nearing 22-24 weeks of pregnancy, she sought the Delhi High Court's permission to terminate it, arguing that continuing an unwanted pregnancy would cause serious mental-health injury and that she was unprepared to raise a child alone. The High Court refused interim relief, holding that Rule 3B of the MTP Rules, which lists categories of women eligible for termination between 20-24 weeks, covered only specific categories (like survivors of sexual assault, minors, or women whose marital status changed during pregnancy), and did not extend to an unmarried woman whose pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship. She appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 21 July 2022 passed an ad interim order allowing an AIIMS Medical Board to assess her, and the termination was safely carried out; the Court then went on to decide the larger legal question of interpretation, treating the case as having significant precedential value and transferring the underlying writ petition to itself.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that Rule 3B must be interpreted purposively, and that denying unmarried women the same right to a safe abortion (up to 24 weeks) available to married women, purely because they are unmarried, would violate Article 14 (equality) since there is no rational basis to distinguish between married and unmarried women in this context: pregnancy outside marriage causes the same physical and mental toll regardless of marital status. The Court held that "change of marital status" language in Rule 3B(c) must be read to include women whose relationship status changed (e.g., separation, widowhood) as well as unmarried women facing an unwanted pregnancy from a consensual relationship, and clarified that the reference to a woman's "partner" (not "husband") in the Act's Explanation 1 to Section 3(2)(b) already reflected a legislative intent not to restrict access based on marital status. The Court also grounded its interpretation in the constitutional rights to reproductive autonomy, privacy, and dignity, and in India's international law obligations. It clarified this ruling does not touch the separate law prohibiting sex-selective abortion (PC-PNDT Act). The appeal was allowed/disposed of, effectively reading Rule 3B to cover unmarried women on the same footing as married women for pregnancies up to 24 weeks.
Lesson Learnt
A woman's right to access safe and legal abortion up to 24 weeks under the MTP Rules does not depend on her marital status, denying unmarried women the same access available to married women is unconstitutional discrimination, and reproductive autonomy is a facet of the constitutional rights to privacy, dignity and equality available to every pregnant woman regardless of her relationship status.