The Supreme Court permitted an unmarried woman to abort her 24-week foetus arising out of a live-in relationship, after a medical board constituted by AIIMS Delhi concluded that the pregnancy can be aborted without risk to the life of the woman.
The Apex Court Bench, headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and also comprising Justice Surya Kant, observed that the Delhi High Court took an ‘unduly restrictive’ view of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, while declining the woman interim relief.
After the 2021 amendment, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act uses the word ‘partner’ instead of ‘husband’ in the explanation to Section 3, noted the top court of the country, stating that this showed the legislative intent to cover an ‘unmarried woman’ under the Act.
The Court observed that on this basis, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit on the ground that she was unmarried.
Stating that the Parliamentary intent was not to confine the benefits to situations arising out of matrimonial relationships, the Court noted that a widow or a divorcee woman was allowed to terminate pregnancy in the term of 20-24 weeks.
Allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will be contrary to the object and spirit of the legislation, it said, adding that allowing the petitioner to terminate her pregnancy on proper interpretation of the statute, prima facie, fell within the ambit of the statute.
The Court further said the distinction between a married and unmarried woman does not bear nexus to the basic purpose and object, which is sought to be achieved by Parliament.
The order was passed on a petition filed by a 25-year-old unmarried woman, seeking termination of her 24-week pregnancy, which had arisen out of a consensual relationship. the plea challenged the Delhi High Court order, refusing to grant her the said relief.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court has taken an ‘unduly restrictive view’ inasmuch as Rule 3(b) speaks of ‘change in marital status’ of woman, followed by expressions widowhood or divorce. It held that expression ‘change in marital status” must be given a “purposive interpretation”.
It further said that the courts cannot be unmindful of the legislative intent behind the amendment to Explanation 1 to Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, which expressly contemplate unwanted pregnancy by failure of method or device used by the woman or her ‘partner’ to prevent pregnancy.
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
-AIIMS Delhi Director to constitute a medical board in terms of provisions of Section 3(2)(d) MTP Act during the course of July 22.
-In the event the Medical Board concludes that the foetus can be aborted without any danger to life of petitioner, the AIIMS shall carry out the abortion in terms of the petition. The report shall be furnished to the court after the completion of procedure.
The Court further issued notice to the Union Government and sought the assistance of Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati on the legislative interpretation.
The petitioner told the Supreme Court that she was eldest among five siblings and her parents were agriculturists. In the absence of a source of livelihood, she will be unable to raise and nurture the child, added the petitioner.