(Delivered on July 21, 2022) Coram: 3-Judge Bench of HM Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and A.S. Bopanna Authored by: HM Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.

The question that was brought before the court was whether Rule 3(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (“the MTP Rules”) could be applied to an unmarried woman in order to allow her to end her pregnancy in compliance with Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (“MTP Act”).

The petitioner was denied the opportunity to abort the fetus in her womb on the ground that she was an unmarried lady and not covered by the provisions of Rule 3(b). The Court held that the High Court took an extremely restrictive and narrow pedantic view of Rule 3(b), excluding unmarried women from its ken.

Referring to Explanation 1 and the phrase employed therein, “women or her partner,” the Court held that the section intends to cover all categories of women within its purview, whosoever wants to get their fetus aborted for an unwanted pregnancy. The court compared the provisions of the pre-amendment and the post-amendment modifications to Section 3 of the MTP Act, wherein prior to the amendment the word “women or her partner” was not existing but was substituted through the amendment of 2021.

Holding women’s rights to their reproductive choice as an inseparable and inseparable part of their personal liberty, under Article 21, it was held that women have a sacrosanct right to their bodily integrity. Referring to the long line of judgments of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh (2009) 9 SCC 1

Admn., K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1. and the High Court on its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC Online Bom 8426. the Court held that if the woman does not want to continue her pregnancy, then forcing her to do so violates her bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma, which would be deleterious to her mental health. Engagement in premarital sex cannot be labelled as vicious or criminal in nature only because notions of social morality are totally subjective.

In light of the fact that the rules, when read in conjunction with Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, expressly envision and include single women within their scope and jurisdiction, the women’s plea was granted, and the High Court’s decision was overturned. Subject to the Medical Board’s assessment at AIIMS Delhi, she was granted permission to abort as a temporary measure