Introduction:

The Bombay High Court, in ABC v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 9782 of 2022, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 58), delivered a significant reminder to the State and its authorities regarding the binding force of constitutional jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court on women’s reproductive autonomy. While disposing of a petition filed by an unmarried woman seeking termination of her 22-week pregnancy, the Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande directed the Maharashtra Government to give wide publicity to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (decided on 29 September 2022). The High Court emphasised that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, should be compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy merely due to lack of awareness or improper implementation of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder. The judgment reiterates that reproductive choice is an inseparable facet of personal liberty, dignity, bodily autonomy and decisional privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that all authorities are constitutionally bound under Article 144 to act in aid of Supreme Court decisions. Though the High Court did not reopen the constitutional question already settled by the Apex Court, it underscored a crucial institutional failure—forcing women to approach courts despite settled law—and sought to correct it through administrative compliance and dissemination.

Factual Background:

The writ petition was filed in 2022 by an unmarried woman, who approached the Bombay High Court seeking permission to medically terminate her pregnancy of approximately 22 weeks. At the time of filing, the petitioner was beyond the ordinary 20-week threshold prescribed under Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) and did not squarely fall within the categories enumerated in Rule 3-B of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003, which lists specific categories of women eligible for termination between 20 to 24 weeks.

The petitioner not only sought permission for abortion but also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, to the extent it allegedly excluded unmarried women whose pregnancies arose out of consensual relationships from accessing abortion services between 20 to 24 weeks. She contended that such exclusion violated her fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

During the pendency of the petition, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, GNCTD (2022), wherein a three-judge Bench unequivocally held that unmarried women are entitled to seek termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks, and that excluding them from Rule 3-B was unconstitutional and violative of their reproductive autonomy and dignity. Eventually, the petitioner’s pregnancy was medically terminated.

When the matter came up for final disposal before the Bombay High Court, the principal relief of abortion had already become infructuous. However, the petition survived on the larger issue of implementation and awareness, especially since women across the country continued to face hurdles in accessing abortion services despite the law being settled by the Supreme Court.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Kranti LC, premised her case on the right to life with dignity, bodily autonomy and decisional privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was argued that compelling an unmarried woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, especially when the pregnancy is a result of a consensual relationship but is no longer desired.

The petitioner submitted that the statutory framework, as interpreted narrowly prior to the Supreme Court judgment, forced unmarried women into an unconstitutional classification, effectively denying them reproductive choice solely based on marital status. Such exclusion, it was argued, not only violated Article 14 (right to equality) but also perpetuated patriarchal notions that link a woman’s reproductive rights to her marital status.

Importantly, after the Supreme Court’s verdict in X v. Principal Secretary, the petitioner’s counsel pressed for systemic relief, arguing that despite the authoritative pronouncement, ground-level implementation remained poor. Medical practitioners and authorities continued to insist on marital status or rigidly adhere to Rule 3-B without appreciating the purposive interpretation adopted by the Supreme Court. As a result, women similarly situated as the petitioner were being compelled to approach constitutional courts for relief, causing delay, trauma, stigma and mental agony.

The petitioner therefore urged the High Court to issue directions ensuring wide dissemination and circulation of the Supreme Court judgment so that the benefit of the law reaches women without forcing them into unnecessary litigation.

Arguments on Behalf of the State and Union of India:

The State of Maharashtra, represented by Assistant Government Pleader Monali Thakur, did not seriously dispute the legal position settled by the Supreme Court. The State acknowledged that the issue regarding the entitlement of unmarried women to seek termination of pregnancy between 20 to 24 weeks had already been conclusively decided by the Apex Court.

The State submitted that once the Supreme Court has authoritatively interpreted the provisions of the MTP Act and Rules, the same becomes binding on all authorities, including medical boards, hospitals and government officials. It was argued that no further adjudication on constitutional validity was necessary at the High Court level, as the challenge had already been rendered academic.

The Union of India, represented by Advocate Punima Awasthi, adopted a similar stance, contending that the Supreme Court judgment governs the field and that the law as declared under Article 141 is binding across India. The Union did not oppose the suggestion that the judgment be circulated widely, leaving it to the wisdom of the Court.

Issues for Consideration:

Though the constitutional issue had been settled by the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court considered the following broader questions:

Whether, despite the Supreme Court’s authoritative ruling, there existed a need for further directions to ensure effective implementation of the law.

Whether authorities involved in the implementation of the MTP Act and Rules could ignore or narrowly construe the Supreme Court’s purposive interpretation.

Whether courts should intervene to prevent similarly situated women from being compelled to approach courts due to administrative ignorance or inertia.

Court’s Analysis and Observations:

The Division Bench noted at the outset that the core legal issue raised by the petitioner no longer survived for adjudication, as it had already been conclusively settled by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in X v. Principal Secretary. The High Court acknowledged that the Apex Court had categorically held that unmarried women are entitled to abortion between 20 to 24 weeks and that the exclusion of unmarried women from Rule 3-B was unconstitutional.

However, the Bench expressed concern over the practical reality that women continued to face obstacles despite settled law. The Court observed that the insistence by the petitioner’s counsel on wide circulation of the Supreme Court judgment was neither misplaced nor unnecessary. It recognised that constitutional rights lose their meaning if those tasked with implementing the law remain unaware or unwilling to follow binding precedents.

The Court invoked Article 144 of the Constitution, which mandates that “all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.” Emphasising this constitutional command, the Bench held that all authorities involved in the implementation of the MTP Act, 1971 and the Rules are duty-bound to comply with the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement.

The High Court clarified that the purposive interpretation accorded to Rule 3-B by the Supreme Court effectively expanded its scope to include unmarried women, ensuring that the rule aligns with constitutional values of dignity, autonomy and equality. Any mechanical or literal application of the Rules, ignoring this interpretation, would be unconstitutional.

Importantly, the Bench refrained from issuing coercive or punitive directions. Instead, it adopted a corrective and facilitative approach, requesting the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra to ensure wide circulation of the Supreme Court judgment to all stakeholders, including medical practitioners, hospitals, medical boards and administrative authorities involved in the implementation of the MTP Act.

The Court observed that such dissemination would prevent situations where women are unnecessarily forced to litigate to assert rights that already stand recognised by the highest court of the land. It reiterated that reproductive choice is not a privilege granted by the State but a fundamental right flowing from personal liberty and dignity.

Judgment:

The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition, holding that the issue raised had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court. While declining to re-examine the constitutional validity of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act, the Court issued a significant direction requesting the Maharashtra Government, through its Public Health Department, to give wide publicity to the Supreme Court judgment in X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, GNCTD.

The Court emphasised that all authorities involved in implementing the MTP Act and Rules are constitutionally bound to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling and ensure that no woman, particularly an unmarried woman, is compelled to continue an unwanted pregnancy due to ignorance or misinterpretation of the law.