Unwanted Pregnancy From Consensual Relationship: Bombay High Court Says Unmarried Women Have Equal Abortion Rights

Unmarried women cannot be denied access to abortion between 20 and 24 weeks merely because they do not fall within the specific categories listed in the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Rules, 2003, the Bombay High Court recently observed, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr (2023).

A division bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande said the Supreme Court’s purposive interpretation of Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules had conclusively held that even unmarried women are eligible to seek termination of pregnancy of 20-24 weeks, from a consensual relationship.

The bench observed that medical authorities and implementing officials are bound to follow the Apex Court’s interpretation when applying the law.

Further, to address persistent confusion among implementing authorities, the bench directed the Public Health Department of Maharashtra to widely disseminate the Supreme Court’s judgment to all officials involved in administering the MTP Act and Rules.

Court said this step is necessary so that similarly situated women do not have to repeatedly knock on judicial doors to vindicate a right that has already been recognised by the law.

Court was dealing with the plea filed by a 26-year-old woman seeking permission for medical termination of her pregnancy which had advanced to 22 weeks. She stated that it was unwanted and resulted from the failure of a contraceptive device in a consensual relationship. She expressed apprehension of social stigma, lack of familial support, and serious mental trauma if compelled to carry the pregnancy to term.

The woman also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, 1971 read with Rule 3-B, under which termination between 20 and 24 weeks is allowed only for certain categories of women.

She contended that excluding unmarried women from the enumerated categories effectively denied them access to lawful abortion, violating her rights to equality and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Although the high court had earlier permitted the petitioner to undergo medical termination following an examination by an expert medical committee, it had kept open the larger constitutional question concerning Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act and Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules.

During the hearing, the Union of India relied on the 2023 Supreme Court judgment, where the Apex Court had already examined the scope of Rule 3-B in a similar factual context. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the object of the law was to allow women to terminate pregnancies rendered unwanted due to a change in material circumstances, and that there was no rational basis to exclude unmarried women from its ambit.

The Apex Court had observed that limiting access to abortion between 20 and 24 weeks only to married women would amount to discrimination and would reinforce patriarchal notions of “permissible” sexual relationships. It had ruled that reproductive autonomy, dignity, and privacy under Article 21 extend equally to unmarried women.

Taking note of this authoritative pronouncement, the Bombay High Court held that the issue raised by the petitioner stood conclusively settled. The bench observed that subordinate legislation must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the parent statute and its constitutional objectives, and that a narrow reading of Rule 3-B would defeat the purpose of the MTP Act.

Court further noted that, under Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities, including civil and judicial, are bound to act in aid of Supreme Court judgments. It therefore held that medical authorities implementing the MTP Act are duty-bound to follow the Apex Court’s interpretation, even if unmarried women are not expressly named in the rules.

Case Title: ABC vs. State of Maharashtra and Union of India

Order Date: January 29, 2026

Bench: Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande