The Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on reproductive rights on Thursday, extending to unmarried and single women the right to safe and legal abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. The court stated that it is every woman’s “right to make reproductive choices without undue interference from the State.”
It’s interesting that the ruling was issued on International Safe Abortion Day.
Any woman in the nation can now have an abortion up to 24 weeks into her pregnancy, regardless of her marital status.
The case that was being heard pertains to a 25-year-old unmarried woman who approached the Delhi High Court seeking termination of her pregnancy of 23 weeks and 5 days. She said that the pregnancy arose from a consensual relationship but her partner had refused to marry her. The high court observed that unmarried women whose pregnancies arise out of consensual relationships were not covered by any of the clauses.
Upon hearing a request from an unmarried pregnant lady who had been in a consensual relationship but was refused the right to an abortion because she was not married, the bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, A S Bopanna, and J B Pardiwala made it plain that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act’s provisions cannot be read to deny that right to single women who are more than 20 weeks pregnant.
According to the bench, if the Act and Rules were “to be interpreted so that its benefits extended only to married women, it would perpetuate the stereotype and socially accepted belief that only married women engage in sexual activity, and that consequently, the benefits in law ought to extend only to them.”
The high court noted that none of the sections applied to unmarried women who become pregnant through consensual sexual activity.
The MTP Act of 1971 and its 2021 amendment were discussed by the bench, which noted that “the Act of 1971 was principally concerned with married women’… Significantly, married and unmarried women are not distinguished in the 2021 Statement of Objects and Reasons. Instead, all women have a right to the advantages of safe and authorised abortions.
Regarding how the law has changed regarding abortion, the bench stated that “although many of the advantages of the law were (and still are) anchored in the institution of marriage, the law in modern times is shedding the notion that marriage is a prerequisite to an individual’s rights” (alone or in relation to one another). When interpreting an enactment’s provisions to achieve its intent and purpose, it is important to keep in mind evolving societal mores.
The MTP Act and MTP Rules’ interpretation must take into account the social realities of the present and not be constrained by societal conventions from a bygone era in order for the law to evolve toward a gender-equal society. Our mores and norms must adapt as society does. A new social environment necessitates a revision of our laws. Law must not be static, and any interpretation of the law must serve the cause of social justice by taking into account how society is changing.
The bench stated that “the situational, social, and economical circumstances of a woman or her family necessarily inform the decision to conceive and raise a child… Every woman’s situation is different… Each woman is ultimately free to assess her life and determine the best course of action in light of any changes to her material circumstances.
It stated that “different social, economic, and cultural factors functioning in her actual or reasonably foreseeable surroundings should be taken into consideration when evaluating the impact of the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy on a woman’s physical or mental health.”
Law must be applied while taking shifting societal norms into consideration. The MTP Act was passed in 1971, and it was primarily concerned with the married women
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that every woman has a right to a safe and legal abortion. According to the Supreme Court of India, all women have the freedom of choice, and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act gives unmarried women the right to an abortion (MTP). The Indian abortion law will not differentiate between married and single women, according to the top court. Rape includes marital rape when discussing abortion.
The supreme court declared that unmarried women are also able to seek abortions in the term of 20–24 weeks resulting from a consenting relationship. This is an important ruling. It also referred to the MTP Act’s exclusion of unmarried women who conceive as a result of a live-in relationship as “unconstitutional.”
“The idea that marriage is a need for a person’s rights is being abandoned by the law in modern times. The MTP act must take current circumstances into account and not be constrained by outdated conventions. The court said that laws “must not be static and must take changing social circumstances into account.
“The third most common cause of maternal death is still unsafe abortions. In India, unsafe abortions account for 60% of all procedures. Restrictive abortion laws result in unsafe abortions by preventing access to safe abortion providers, the statement continued, “Married women may also fall under the category of sexual assault or rape survivors. Non-consensual sex with her husband may result in a woman becoming pregnant. The Supreme Court also ruled that registered medical petitioners are not required to reveal a minor’s identify if she files a POSCO Act abortion request.
The question is whether Rule 3B of the MTP statute is validly excluding unmarried women who became pregnant through a consensual relationship. Sexual assault and rape survivors, minors, women who experience a change in marital status, such as widowhood or divorce, during pregnancy, physically disabled women, mentally ill women, and for a foetal malformation that poses a significant risk of being incompatible with life are just a few of the groups of women whose pregnancies may be terminated between 20 and 24 weeks, according to Rule 3B.
The regulation would promote the stereotype that only married women engage in sexual activity, according to Justice Chandrachud, the court’s presiding justice, and that is not constitutionally viable.
According to the court, married and single women have equal access to the right to reproductive autonomy.