Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

X vs. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

SCR Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 686
Year/Volume: 2022/ Volume 7
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2022
Petitioner: X
Disposal Nature: Appeal Disposed Off
Neutral Citation: 2022 INSC 1035
Judgment Delivered by: Honble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Respondent: THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Case Type: CIVIL APPEAL /5802/2022
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act,2021) – s. 3(2)(b) – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules,2003 (Amended by Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021) – Rule 3B – Constitution of India – Article 14, 21 – The Interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules – Unmarried or single women fall within the ambit of Rule 3B – Purpose and object – Right to reproductive autonomy – Right to dignity – Appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court and submitted that appellant was in a consensual relationship and had become pregnant – As her partner had refused to marry her and in absence of source of livelihood, she would be unable to nurture a child as an unmarried mother – Appellant also instituted a Criminal Miscellaneous Application for grant of interim relief to terminate her pregnancy during the pendency of the Writ Petition – High Court declined to grant relief sought and observed that Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act was inapplicable and since the appellant, being an unmarried woman, was not covered by any of the sub-clauses of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules – Appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of High Court and Supreme Court by ad interim order modified the order of the High court and permitted the appellant to terminate her pregnancy – As the case involved substantial question of law the writ petition before the High Court was transferred to Supreme Court – The issue involved is the interpretation of Rule 3B of the MTP Rules – Held: In s.3 of the MTP Amendment Act the words used are “Any women or her partner”, by eliminating the words (which existed before the amendment) “married women or her husband” the legislature intended to clarify the scope of s.3 – Further held, the meaning of the words “sexual assault” or “rape” in Rule 3B(a) includes a husband’s act of sexual assault or rape (Marital rape) committed on his wife but solely for the purposes of the MTP Act – Unmarried women have right to access safe and legal abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, if they face a change in their material circumstances, similar to married women – Distinction between married and unmarried women does not bear nexus to the basic purpose and object which is sought to be achieved by parliament – 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.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act,2021 ) – Object and purpose – Discussed.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act,2021 ) – Object and purpose – Discussed. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules,2003 (Amended by Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules, 2021) – Rule 3B – Purposive Interpretation of.

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971(Amended by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act
  • 2021) – s. 3(2)(b) – Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules
  • 2003 (Amended by Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Rules
  • 2021) – Rule 3B – Constitution of India – Article 14
  • 21