Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Bombay, Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande has asked the State’s Public Health Department to circulate widely the Supreme Court’s decision in X v Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi, so that no woman, including an unmarried woman, is made to continue an “unwanted” pregnancy. The petition was moved by an unmarried woman whose pregnancy had progressed to about 22 weeks, seeking medical termination and questioning her exclusion from access to termination in the 20–24 week window. The Bench noted that the Supreme Court’s judgment of September 29, 2022 recognises the entitlement of unmarried women to seek termination between 20 and 24 weeks in pregnancies arising from consensual relationships and treats the exclusion of such women from the MTP framework as unconstitutional.

The petitioner, a 26-year-old unmarried woman, approached the High Court seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy, which had advanced to 22 weeks. She also challenged the validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (as amended in 2021), contending that the provision excluded unmarried women from termination beyond 20 weeks.

Also Read: Post-Award Property Purchasers Cannot Resist Execution Of Arbitral Award: Supreme Court Upholds Attachment Of Transferred Immovable Property And Dismisses Transferee’s Appeal

The petitioner argued that her pregnancy resulted from the failure of a contraceptive device and, being unmarried, she feared social stigma and lack of family support. She claimed that the exclusion violated her rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court had earlier directed her medical examination by an expert committee, after which she was permitted to terminate the pregnancy at a government-recognized centre.

Her challenge focused on Rule 3-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, which listed categories of women eligible for termination up to 24 weeks, including survivors of sexual assault, minors, widows, divorcees, women with disabilities, mentally ill women, cases of foetal malformation, and pregnancies in humanitarian or emergency settings. The petitioner contended that unmarried women were excluded from this list, thereby creating discrimination.

The Court recorded the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in X vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. and stated: “The object of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act read with Rule 3-B is to provide for abortions between twenty and twenty-four weeks, rendered unwanted due to a change in the material circumstances of women.”

It further observed: “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 3-B.”

The Court noted the Supreme Court’s finding: “A narrow interpretation of Rule 3-B, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

It also recorded: “Prohibiting unmarried or single pregnant women (whose pregnancies are between twenty and twenty-four weeks) from accessing abortion while allowing married women to access them during the same period would fall foul of the spirit guiding Article 14.”

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s view on reproductive autonomy: “The law should not decide the beneficiaries of a statute based on narrow patriarchal principles about what constitutes ‘permissible sex’, which create invidious classifications and excludes groups based on their personal circumstances.”

The Court highlighted the recognition of rights under Article 21: “The rights of reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 give an unmarried woman the right of choice on whether or not to bear a child, on a similar footing of a married woman.”

Finally, the Court noted the Supreme Court’s conclusion: “In view of the purposive interpretation accorded to Rule 3-B, we are not required to adjudicate upon its constitutional validity.”

Also Read: Promotion Under Seniority-Cum-Merit Must Follow Feeder-Cadre Seniority, Not Date Of Initial Appointment: Bombay High Court

The Court directed: “By virtue of Article 144 of the Constitution of India that, every authority including civil and judicial, in the territory of India is duty bound to act in aid of the Supreme Court, and, therefore, needless to state that all those are involved in implementation of the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Rules are duty bound by the said authoritative pronouncement.”

“We request the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra to have wide circulation of the said decision of the Apex Court to all those functionaries who are involved in implementation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Rules.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Kranti L. C., Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M. P. Thakur, AGP, Ms. Punima Awasthi, Advocate

Case Title: ABC vs. State of Maharashtra & Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:6245-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 9782 of 2022
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre, Justice Manjusha Deshpande