HC allows unmarried woman to terminate her 21-week pregnancy, says law cannot be discriminatory

The Bombay High Court has permitted a 23-year-old unmarried woman to terminate her pregnancy beyond the 20-week threshold, noting that restricting similar permission to married women will mean a narrow interpretation of the law.

A division bench observed that such narrow interpretation would render the legal provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court’s ruling comes after the woman, who was 21 weeks pregnant, sought to end her pregnancy due to financial and personal reasons.

The bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Neela Gokhale on October 7 objected to the Maharashtra government’s opposition to the plea filed by the unmarried woman on the ground that she does not fall under the specified category of women who can undergo medical termination of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.

Under Rule 3-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, only certain categories of women—including sexual assault victims, minors, widows or divorcees, women with physical or mental disabilities, and cases involving fetal abnormalities—are permitted to undergo termination up to 24 weeks.

The woman’s petition stated that her pregnancy resulted from a consensual relationship, and she lacked the financial means to support a child.

In September 2024, the woman was 21 weeks pregnant and was advised by the state-run JJ Hospital to seek the court’s approval for the termination of pregnancy as it had crossed the 20-week threshold.

Under the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, a pregnancy beyond the 20-week gestation period can be terminated only after the court’s nod.

The state argued that the woman did not fall within the legal categories outlined in the MTP Rules for termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks. However, the bench rejected this “narrow interpretation” of the law, noting that it would perpetuate societal stereotypes and undermine the constitutional rights of unmarried women.

The bench noted that if the provision of the law was to be interpreted in a manner that its benefits can be extended only to married women then it would perpetuate the stereotype and socially-held notion.

“A narrow interpretation of the law, limited only to married women, would render the provision discriminatory towards unmarried women and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.

The court permitted the woman to undergo a medical procedure to terminate her pregnancy.

The bench also directed the Union government to consider making changes in the forms, formats and procedures. The court referred to a Supreme Court verdict which observed that the case of an unmarried woman would also be covered under the provisions of the MTP Act