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

A Life Beyond the Contract

- Yogitha Jammula1 An arbitration agreement is the lifeblood of arbitration. Whether it takes the form of a standalone document or a clause embedded within a contract, the existence of an arbitration agreement is a fundamental prerequisite for initiating arbitration. But what happens when the contract containing the arbitral clause/agreement Read more »

Sangeet Vs. State Of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452.

The court observed that, it is a common misperception that a person facing a life sentence has an unassailable right to be released after serving 14 or 20 years in jail. No such right exists for the prisoner. Subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 Read more »

Kunal Majumdar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 320

The court observed that, section 366 of the CrPC casts a duty upon the High Court to, (a) “examine the nature and manner in which the offence was committed, mens reas, if any of the culprit, the plight of the victim as noted by the trail court, the diabolic manner 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.