The present case arose from a July order in which the Supreme Court had allowed an unmarried woman, who became pregnant due to consensual sex, to abort her 24-week-old foetus.
The appellant, hailing from Manipur and currently residing in Delhi, had moved the Delhi High Court after she came to know about her pregnancy.
The High Court had refused relief to the woman, holding that an unmarried woman who is carrying a child out of a consensual sexual relationship cannot be permitted to terminate pregnancy older than 20 weeks.
The High Court had said that Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case since an unmarried woman and whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered in cases beyond 20 weeks which is the outer limit laid down by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) and the MTP Rules for termination of pregnancy arising from consensual sexual relationships.
As per the MTP Rules, only survivors of rape, minors, women whose marital status changed during pregnancy, mentally-ill women, or women with foetal malformation are allowed to terminate pregnancy upto 24 weeks.
The woman then moved the Supreme Court in appeal.
The Supreme Court, on July 21, overturned the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had declined to permit the abortion.
The top court in its July order said that the law has to be given a broad interpretation and the intention of the parliament should be examined.
In this regard, the Court noted that the Amendment Act of 2021 had inserted an explanation to the Section 3(2)(a) of MTP Act which uses the words ‘woman or her partner’ instead of ‘husband’.
The Court read this along with clause (c) of Rule 3B which allows termination of pregnancy in case of change in marital status. The clause has words ‘widowhood’ and ‘divorce’ in brackets.
It, therefore, said that allowing the petitioner to suffer an unwanted pregnancy will go against the parliamentary intent and it cannot be denied to her only on the basis of her being unmarried and being married or unmarried has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
The Court, therefore, directed the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to form a medical board in terms of provisions Section 3 of MTP Act to decide on termination of pregnancy of the appellant.
The Supreme Court while allowing the plea observed that the High Court took an unduly restrictive view in interpreting the MTP Act and Rules.
After allowing the abortion the Court proceeded to hold further hearing on the scope of MTP Act and Rules.
Source: Barandbench
