Bench emphasizes that unmarried women need not approach courts to access abortion up to 24 weeks, aligning implementation with Supreme Court precedent and urging state dissemination.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on February 9, 2026 directed the Maharashtra government to disseminate widely the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling that affirmed the right of unmarried women to seek medical termination of pregnancy (MTP) up to 24 weeks. The High Court stressed that eligible women should not feel compelled to approach courts to exercise this right.
A division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande delivered the order while disposing of a writ petition challenging the interpretation of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971.
Case Title & Petition Context
The petition in ABC v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 9782 of 2022) was filed in 2022 by an unmarried woman seeking termination of her 22-week pregnancy and challenging the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, which sets out conditions for abortion beyond 20 weeks.
The petitioner argued that excluding unmarried women from the extended 20–24 week window violated her rights to dignity, autonomy, and freedom from cruel or degrading treatment, as she would be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
Legal Issue
The central legal issue was whether the extant statutory regime and rules, particularly Rule 3-B of the MTP Rules, 2003, discriminated against unmarried women by limiting access to later-term abortions based on marital status, and whether courts should intervene to uphold constitutional rights.
Supreme Court Precedent
The bench anchored its order on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi delivered on September 29, 2022. In that case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India held that all women, irrespective of marital status, have the right to a safe and legal abortion up to 24 weeks under the MTP Act. The apex court ruled that the exclusion of unmarried women from the ambit of Rule 3-B was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 (equality before law) and other fundamental rights.
The Supreme Court interpreted the phrase “change of marital status” in Rule 3-B to include unmarried women whose relationship status has changed, extending the scope of permissible termination on grounds including mental health risk arising from unintended pregnancy.
High Court’s Observations
The Bombay High Court observed that the law on this issue had been settled by the Supreme Court and that courts have repeatedly emphasised that unmarried women are entitled to the same reproductive rights as married women. The bench noted concerns that unmarried women and healthcare providers may be unaware of or misinterpret the law, leading to unnecessary litigation.
The Court underscored that no woman should be forced to approach the judiciary simply to access rights already affirmed by the Supreme Court. It reiterated that by virtue of Article 144 of the Constitution, all authorities are bound to comply with Supreme Court pronouncements.
Rather than grant substantive relief on the petition’s merits, the bench disposed of the matter after emphasising the established position of law and directing the State Public Health Department to widely publicise the apex court’s ruling among medical practitioners and officials involved in implementing the MTP Act and Rules.
Practical Implications
- Access Without Litigation: The order clarifies that eligible women, particularly those unmarried, should not find themselves compelled to seek judicial intervention to access abortion services up to 24 weeks’ gestation as recognised by the Supreme Court.
- State Implementation: The Court’s direction for wide dissemination aims to ensure that frontline health authorities, government hospitals, and medical practitioners are aware of the legal position and do not impose unnecessary procedural barriers.
- Reducing Barriers: The pronouncement is intended to prevent situations where uninformed administrative practices or misconceptions lead to women being denied lawful medical termination of pregnancy, thus reducing avoidable mental and physical distress.
- Uniform Application: The High Court’s reference to Article 144 emphasises that all administrative and judicial bodies must enforce and respect Supreme Court interpretations without deviation.
The judgment adds clarity on enforcement of abortion rights under the MTP Act and ensures that the Supreme Court’s ruling affirming the entitlement of unmarried women to terminate pregnancies up to 24 weeks is effectively implemented without forcing women to approach courts.
