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

Sadakat Kotwar Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 Scc Online Sc 1046

The Supreme Court observed that the intention of an accused can be ascertained by the part of the body where the accused chose to assault the victim and the nature of injury inflicted upon the victim by the accused, and that no one can enter the mind of the accused to read the intention of... Read more » Read more »

Actions of the Governors and the President are subject to judicial review

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a Writ Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu, held that the Governor cannot keep bills submitted to them pending without response indefinitely. The Court also held that delays in granting assent to bills that were repassed by the legislature, without any reason are both illegal and... Read more » Read more »

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court delays. Relying on Bharat Damodar... Read more » 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.