New Delhi, 22 July
The Supreme Court in a significant order on Thursday expanded the scope of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to include unmarried women and allowed a 25-year-old woman to abort a 24-week pregnancy arising out of a consensual relationship.
“A woman’s right to reproductive choice is an inseparable part of her personal liberty and a sacred right to bodily integrity under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the apex court said.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and AS Bopanna said, “Depriving an unmarried woman the right to a safe abortion is a violation of her personal autonomy and liberty. Live-in relationships have been recognized by this Court.”
It requested the Director of AIIMS, Delhi to constitute a Medical Board in terms of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act by Friday.
It said, “If the Medical Board concludes that the fetus can be aborted without endangering the life of the petitioner, a team of doctors at AIIMS will perform the abortion as requested earlier. High Court…”
The bench said that before doing so, the wishes of the woman shall be re-examined and her written consent shall be obtained after due verification of identity and thereafter a report shall be submitted to this court after compliance of this order within a period of one week. will be presented.
It said, “In the meantime, we are of the view that allowing the petitioner to allow unwanted pregnancies would be contrary to the intent of the law made by Parliament. Further, allowing the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy, subject to proper interpretation of the statute, would first It is, therefore, within the purview of law and the petitioner should not be denied benefits on the ground that she is an unmarried woman.
It states that the distinction between a married and unmarried woman is not connected with the original object and object sought to be achieved by the Parliament, which is specifically stated by the provisions of Explanation 1 to section 3 of the Act. Is.
“The petitioner had moved the High Court before completing 24 weeks of pregnancy. The delay in the judicial process cannot serve to prejudice her”, it said.
The bench said that Parliament intends to include unmarried women and single women within the purview of the Act by amending the MTP Act through the 2021 Act, which is clear from replacing the word ‘husband’ with ‘partner’ in the provisions. Is.
The top court emphasized that the law recognized a woman’s reproductive choice and her bodily integrity and autonomy.
“Both these rights embody the notion that a woman should have a choice whether or not to bear a child. The intention of the legislature in recognizing the right is not to differentiate between a married and unmarried woman, a in the capacity to make the decision to bear or not to bear a child. These rights, it must be underlined, are in conformity with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution”, it said.
The bench, however, observed and observed that there is a difference in law as Section 3 goes beyond traditional relations on the ground of marriage, Rule 3B of the MTP Rules does not envisage the situation relating to unmarried women, but recognizes other categories of women. Has been. Such as divorced, widows, minors, disabled and mentally ill women and survivors of sexual assault or rape.
“There is no ground to deny unmarried women the right to medically terminate a pregnancy when the same option is available to other categories of women”, it said.
The bench noted that the High Court, in its July 15 order, held that since the petitioner is an unmarried woman, whose pregnancy arose out of a consent, her case was “explicitly covered under any of the terms and provisions of the MTP”. not covered”. act.
It said, “Prima facie, apart from the issue of constitutionality which has been addressed before the High Court, it appears that the High Court has taken an unreasonably restrictive view on the provisions of clause (c) of Rule 3B of the clause. (c) ) refers to a change in marital status during an ongoing pregnancy and is followed by the words widowhood and divorce in parentheses.
Analyzing the Explanation in the statutes, the bench said that the Explanation expressly considers a situation in which the failure of any instrument or method used by a woman or her partner for the purpose of limiting the number of children, resulting in unwanted pregnancy. preventing pregnancy.
“Therefore, the Parliamentary intent is not to explicitly limit the beneficial provisions of the MTP Act to a situation involving marital relations. Conversely, the context of the expression “any woman or her partner” indicates a broader meaning and intent. to be told by the Parliament”, it said.
The top court said that in this case, the petitioner states that she was abandoned by her accomplice in the last stage in June 2022, causing her extreme mental agony, trauma and physical pain.
“It goes against the object of law to exclude unmarried women and single women from the purview of the law”, adding that a comparison of the Act of MTP, 1971 and the Act of MTP, 2021 shows that the phrase ‘married woman’ The place was taken by ‘any woman’ and the word ‘husband’ was replaced by ‘partner’.