Marriage must not be a deciding factor with respect to the reproductive autonomy of a women.

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Marriage must not...

In the judgment of  X v. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2022 INSC 740) the Supreme Court of India ruled that unmarried women are entitled to seek abortions within 24 weeks of pregnancy under Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. The case arose when a 25-year-old unmarried woman, abandoned by her partner, sought to terminate her 22-week pregnancy. The Delhi High Court had denied her relief, interpreting Rule 3B(c)—which permits abortions for women facing a change in marital status as limited to married women.

Overruling the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court held that restricting Rule 3B to only married women was discriminatory and violated the right to equality and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that amendments to the MTP Act in 2021 replaced “married woman” with “any woman,” broadening the scope to include unmarried women. Justice Chandrachud, delivering the judgment, reaffirmed reproductive autonomy as a fundamental right and declared that all women, irrespective of marital status, must have equal access to safe abortion services within the legal framework.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Writ Petition is Maintainable Against a Private Unaided Educational Institution Where the Relief Sought Arises From a Statutory Obligation and Has a Public Element

In siyaram education society v. Chhaya d/o baliram dhave & ors., 2026 insc 871, the hon’ble supreme court held that a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution is maintainable against a private unaided educational institution where the right sought to be enforced flows from a statute and the Read more »

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The Read more »

National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

In the case of National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., the Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the NCPCR under Article 32, emphasizing that statutory bodies created to protect fundamental rights cannot invoke Article 32 to enforce their mandates against Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.