Delhi High Court rules that forcing a woman to continue pregnancy violates bodily integrity and mental health, reaffirming reproductive autonomy under Article 21 and the MTP Act.
Introduction
In a significant ruling strengthening women’s reproductive rights, the Delhi High Court has held that forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy violates her bodily integrity and aggravates mental trauma. The Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated by a husband against his estranged wife for terminating a 14-week pregnancy, reiterating that a woman’s right to choose abortion is an integral part of her personal autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This judgment is crucial for law aspirants, as it harmonises Section 312 of the IPC, the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, and evolving constitutional jurisprudence on privacy, dignity, and decisional liberty.
Background of the Case
The husband filed a criminal complaint alleging that his wife had committed an offence under Section 312 IPC (causing miscarriage) by medically terminating her pregnancy without his consent.
A sessions court upheld the summoning order against the wife, prompting her to approach the Delhi High Court.
The petitioner argued that:
- Her reproductive autonomy was unlawfully criminalised
- Her fundamental rights to privacy, bodily integrity, and decisional liberty were ignored
- The termination was lawful under the MTP Act
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
- Whether a woman can be prosecuted under Section 312 IPC for terminating her pregnancy under the MTP Act
- Whether marital discord is a valid ground for abortion under the MTP framework
- Whether a husband’s consent is required for medical termination of pregnancy
- Whether forcing continuation of pregnancy violates Article 21
Observations of the Delhi High Court
Reproductive Autonomy Is a Fundamental Right
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna emphasised that freedom of choice is a facet of personal autonomy, and control over reproduction is a basic need and right of every woman. Compelling a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy amounts to a direct violation of bodily integrity.
“If a woman does not want to continue with the pregnancy, forcing her to do so represents a violation of her bodily integrity and aggravates her mental trauma.”
No Husband’s Consent Required Under MTP Act
The Court clarified that the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act does not require a woman to obtain her husband’s permission for abortion.
The “golden thread” running through the Act is the prevention of grave injury to a woman’s physical and mental health.
Section 312 IPC Not Attracted When MTP Act Is Followed
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that when a pregnancy is terminated in accordance with Section 3 of the MTP Act and its Rules, no offence under Section 312 IPC is made out.
The lawful exercise of a woman’s reproductive choice cannot be criminalised.
Marital Discord Is Not Limited to Formal Separation
Rejecting the husband’s argument that the couple was living together at the time of abortion, the Court ruled that marital discord cannot be narrowly interpreted to exist only after litigation or physical separation.
Medical records showed that the wife was already under mental stress due to her marriage and had decided to separate — sufficient to establish material change in circumstances.
Interpretation of MTP Rule 3-B(c)
The Court held that MTP Rule 3-B(c), which recognises eligibility for abortion upon a change in marital status (such as divorce or widowhood), must be liberally interpreted to include all women facing a change of material circumstances, including serious marital discord.
Social Reality and Gendered Burden
In a strong observation, the Court acknowledged the harsh reality of a misogynistic society, noting that in cases of unwanted pregnancy:
- The entire burden—social, financial, and emotional—falls on the woman
- The man may walk away, while the woman is left to fend for herself
- Such circumstances inevitably cause grave mental trauma
“It is only a woman who suffers… such a pregnancy brings with it insurmountable difficulties and serious repercussions on mental health.”
Final Ruling
The Delhi High Court:
- Discharged the wife from criminal proceedings
- Held that no offence under Section 312 IPC was committed
- Reaffirmed that mental stress due to marital discord is a valid ground for abortion
- Strengthened constitutional protection of reproductive autonomy under Article 21
Why This Judgment Is Important for Law Aspirants
- Clarifies the interplay between IPC and MTP Act
- Reinforces constitutional morality over patriarchal control
- Important for Judiciary, PCS (J), and UPSC Law Optional
- Reflects evolving jurisprudence on privacy, dignity, and bodily autonomy
Key Takeaways (Exam-Ready Points)
- Reproductive choice is part of Article 21
- Husband’s consent is not required for abortion
- MTP Act overrides IPC Section 312 when conditions are met
- Marital discord includes mental and emotional stress
- Mental health is as significant as physical health under MTP Act
Don’t Let Ego Ruin Marriage’: Supreme Court’s Strong Message to Wife in Marital Case
