2022 (8) TMI 298 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking permission for ongoing pregnancy through registered medical practitioners - seeking direction to Respondent to include unmarried woman also within the ambit of the Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 (as amended on 21.10.2021) for termination of pregnancy under clause (b) of sub-section (2) Section 3 of the MTP Act, for a period of up to twenty-four weeks - case of petitioner is that she cannot give birth to the child as she is an unmarried woman and her partner has refused to marry her - HELD THAT - A perusal of Section 3(2) (a) of the Act provides that the Medical Practitioner can terminate the pregnancy, provided, the pregnancy does not exceed 20 weeks. Section 3(2) (b) of the Act provides for termination in circumstances where the pregnancy exceeds 20 weeks but does not exceed 24 weeks - A perusal of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act provides that the said sub-Section is applicable only to those women who are covered under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. The Petitioner, who is an unmarried woman and whose pregnancy arises out of a consensual relationship, is clearly not covered by any of the Clauses under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. Therefore, Section 3(2)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, inasmuch as it excludes an unmarried woman. Whether such rule is valid or not can be decided only after the said rule is held ultra vires, for which purpose, notice has to be issued in the writ petition and has been done so by this Court - As of today, Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, stands, and this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, cannot go beyond the Statute. Granting interim relief now would amount to allowing the writ petition itself. Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003.
2. Validity of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: Termination of pregnancy of an unmarried woman under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003:

The petitioner, an unmarried woman, filed a writ petition seeking permission to terminate her pregnancy before reaching 24 weeks. The petitioner's situation involved being 25 years old, pregnant for 23 weeks 5 days, and unable to raise the child due to various reasons, including being unmarried and her partner's refusal to marry her. The petitioner argued that continuing the pregnancy would cause grave physical and mental harm and prevent her from marrying in the future due to social stigma. However, the court noted that Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, allowing termination up to 24 weeks, is applicable only to specific categories of women listed in Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003. Since the petitioner did not fall under any of these categories, the court found that the Act's provisions did not apply to her case.

Issue 2: Validity of Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 under Article 14 of the Constitution of India:

The petitioner's counsel argued that Rule 3B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, excluding unmarried women from its scope, violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law. The court acknowledged the constitutional challenge but emphasized that the validity of the rule could only be determined if it was found ultra vires. As the rule was currently in force, the court stated that it could not overstep the statutory provisions. The court declined to grant interim relief, noting that doing so would essentially decide the writ petition itself. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for interim relief, maintaining the status quo until further legal proceedings.

---