Parties and roles: X is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. An unmarried woman became pregnant in a consensual relationship that later failed and sought termination within the statutory 24-week window. The High Court read the rules as covering specified categories of married women but not an unmarried woman whose circumstances changed. The case asked whether reproductive choice can depend on marital status and how law should understand changes in material circumstances and marital sexual violence. Procedural and real-world context: 2022: Unmarried woman at about 22 weeks sought termination after relationship changed. | Delhi High Court denied interim relief based on marital-status reading. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve can unmarried women access abortion up to 24 weeks under the MTP framework? Does marital status justify differential treatment? Can rape for MTP purposes include marital rape? The outcome mattered immediately because all women, married or unmarried, are entitled to equal access within the statutory framework. A change in material circumstances includes abandonment or relationship breakdown. Procedural setting: 2022: Unmarried woman at about 22 weeks sought termination after relationship changed. | Delhi High Court denied interim relief based on marital-status reading. | 21 Jul 2022: Supreme Court allowed medical termination. | 29 Sep 2022: Detailed judgment expanded equal access and interpretation. The central problem before the Court was can unmarried women access abortion up to 24 weeks under the MTP framework? Does marital status justify differential treatment? Can rape for MTP purposes include marital rape? The controversy was considered in the framework of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended, ss.3 and 5; MTP Rules, 2003, r.3B, together with Constitution arts.14 and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in reproductive autonomy; bodily integrity; privacy; equal protection regardless of marital status; purposive interpretation.

Appellant: excluding unmarried women was discriminatory and violated bodily autonomy, privacy and dignity; the statute uses 'woman,' not wife. | State/statutory reading: the rule listed defined categories and courts should not add one, though health and constitutional considerations were recognized. Competing positions in context: X's position: as the appellant/applicant, X sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Reproductive autonomy; bodily integrity; privacy; equal protection regardless of marital status; purposive interpretation. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi's position: as respondent, Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended, ss.3 and 5; MTP Rules, 2003, r.3B and Constitution arts.14 and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

All women, married or unmarried, are entitled to equal access within the statutory framework. A change in material circumstances includes abandonment or relationship breakdown. Reproductive autonomy encompasses whether and when to become a parent. For the limited purpose of the MTP Act, rape includes sexual assault by a husband, enabling access without deciding the separate criminal-law marital-rape exception. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Reproductive autonomy; bodily integrity; privacy; equal protection regardless of marital status; purposive interpretation and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Civil Appeal No. 5802/2022. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended, ss.3 and 5; MTP Rules, 2003, r.3B. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as amended, ss.3 and 5; MTP Rules, 2003, r.3B

Constitution arts.14 and 21

Reproductive autonomy; bodily integrity; privacy; equal protection regardless of marital status; purposive interpretation