AUTHOR: Aradhana Patel, Iswar Saran Degree College, University of Allahabad
ABSTRACT
The reproductive autonomy of women is closely connected with personal liberty, dignity and
equality but its protection in India has several limitations. This paper examines the
reproductive rights of women by doing the broad interpretation of Article 21 2 and through
various important precedents like Suchita Srivastava 3 and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy. 4 This
paper also analyzes the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act, 1971) 5 and
Amendment of 2021 to the MTP Act expand the scope of access to abortion but it still has
early depend upon the opinions of doctors.
This paper also analyse is the relationship of MTP Act to the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) 6, Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, 7 and and the continuing issue of exception of marital rape. It further analyses the judicial development including landmark judgements like X v. Union of
India (2023), 8 and compare India’s approach with various international practices like the USA
and France. Further paper concluded with giving the suggestions to spend on the reproductive
rights of women.
1. INTRODUCTION
The question of who will decide whether or when a woman bears a child is not merely a
health care question but also a matter of constitutional right. Reproductive autonomy means
the women have freedom to make informed decisions about her own body, pregnancy and
family life. In India this freedom is closely connected with the constitutional values of
personal liberty, dignity and equality. However, the situation of women in the Indian legal
system is more complicated. Abortion is remain subject to legal and medical requirements,
sex selection is prohibited, surrogacy is regulated and certain old criminal law provisions continue to limit women’s control over their reproductive lives and the law still shield the
husband from prosecution for non-consensual sex within the marriage.
This paper analyzes how the Indian constitution protected the women’s right to choose in
India. It first examined the constitutional foundation of reproductive rights and then looked
into the development of abortion law which evolved from criminalisation to conditional
legalisation. The paper critically examines the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 9
(hereinafter referred as MTP Act, 1971), especially the 2021 Amendment 10 and also analyses
the significance of judicial precedents that expands the scope of reproductive autonomy and
also places certain restrictions in other cases. The paper highlights the challenges faced by
women in exercising their reproductive choices. The paper concludes with the comparative
analysis of the other legal systems and provides some suggestions for strengthening
reproductive rights in India.
2. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN INDIA
In the Indian constitution the term “reproductive rights” is not explicitly used in any article.
The court expanded the scope of Article 21 11 including reproductive rights in it and Article
14 12 and 15 13 also ensured reproductive rights by guaranteeing equality and non
discrimination.
2.1 Article 21: Life, Liberty and Dignity
The right to reproductive choice is upheld by the court by the broad interpretation of Article 14 Article 21 protects life, personal liberty and dignity of a human being but the Apex Court made clear that this protection is not limited to physical existence. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 15 the supreme court held that “life” under Article 21 is more than animal existence. 16 “Life” under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and enjoy the basic freedom necessary for a meaningful life.
This broad interpretation of article 21 allows the code to recognise all those rights that are not
explicitly mentioned in the Indian constitution including the right to bodylytony and
reproductive choices.
2.2 Privacy as a Constitutional Anchor
The right to privacy is a significant right emerged by the interpretation of article 21 to
strengthen reproductive autonomy. In the landmark case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union
of India, 17 The 9 judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental
right under Article 21. The court connects privacy with decisional autonomy where a person
must have freedom to make decisions regarding their own body and family life. It also
includes decisions regarding contraception marriage and Pro creation. Therefore,
reproductive choices are closely connected with the right to privacy.
2.3 Equality, Directive Principles and International Law
Beyond Article 21 18 reproductive rights were also supported by the principle of equality.
Article 14 19 and 15 20 issues equality and not discrimination and Article 15(3) 21 empowers the
state to make special provision for women and children. The Directive Principles of State
policy also directs stay to improve the public health and nutrition under Article 47. 22 Article
51(c) 23 and Article 253 24 requires India to honour international treaties which strengthen this
framework further. Article 8 of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) 25 to which India is a party required to prevent
discrimination against women in healthcare including family planning. Therefore,
reproductive rights and choice are protected by the Indian constitution and India’s
commitment to international instruments. 26
3. FROM REGULATION TO AUTONOMY: EVOLUTION OF ABORTION LAW IN INDIA
Before 1971, abortion in India was mainly governed by Indian Penal Code, 1860 which
criminalised abortion except when it was necessary to save the life of women. 27 This means
that women seeking termination of pregnancy and the person performing it mainly face
criminal consequences. Consequently, many women are forced to see abortion secretly or
through unsafe methods which cause mental problems and deaths. 28 To address this issue in
1964, the government formed the Shantilal Shah Committee. This committee examined the
abortion from a medical legal and social perspective and suggested some changes in the
existing laws. The committee’s recommendation eventually became the basis for the
enactment of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
This act shifted India’s criminal approach to regulated medical approach by allowing abortion in certain
circumstances. 29 However, the MTP Act still imposed some restrictions on women and did
not provide complete reproductive freedom. The original act requires the opinion of one or
two Registered Medical Practitioners, depending on the stage of pregnancy and restricts
abortion only up to 20 weeks. They said they did not recognise the contraceptive failure of
unmarried women as a ground for the abortion. Over the years the court and law makers
demand for great reproductive freedom. This limitation eventually led to the reforms
introduced by the 2021 amendment to the MTP Act 1971.
4. THE MEDICAL TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY ACT, 1971: RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS
The 2021 Amendment to the MTP Act 1971 made abortion more accessible to women in
many ways. It allows the termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks in the opinion of one
Registered Medical Practitioner (RMP). For pregnancy is between 20 to 24 weeks opinion of
two Registered Medical Practitioner required for specific categories of women including
minors, survivor of sexual assault and women whose marital status has changed during
pregnancy. 30 The 2021 Amendment added Section 3(2B) which allowed the termination of
pregnancy beyond the prescribed gestational limit where the Medical Board diagnoses substantial foetal abnormalities. 31 The 2021 Amendment also made a change where earlier
loss requires only a ‘married woman’ could rely on contraceptive failure as a ground for the
termination of pregnancy but now this ground is extended to ‘any woman or her partner’.
Thereby, allowing unmarried women to rely on this ground as well.
Despite these reforms the MTP Act still gives doctors significant control over a woman’s
reproductive choice. 32 A woman is not completely independent to decide her termination of
pregnancy because her decision always depends on the opinion of a registered medical
practiceness so practically a woman has no real reproductive autonomy. A doctor may refuse
to provide the medical services because of personal beliefs, fear of legal consequences or lack
of availability. 33 The statute is also not imposing a time limit within which the medical board
must render its opinion which may cause delay and especially when pregnancy is already at
an advanced stage. Women in rural areas are even facing bigger problems because they may
not have access to qualified medical practitioners or proper medical facilities. Therefore, it
can be stated that a legal right of reproductive autonomy may exist on paper but remain
difficult to access in reality.
5. JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE
5.1 Early Foundations: Suchita Srivastava and Allied Cases
The Indian Court played a significant role in protecting the reproductive rights of women
often moving ahead of the legislature in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, 34
The Supreme Court held that reproductive choice is part of personal liberty under Article 21.
The court further clarified that the right to reproductive choice includes both the right to
procreate and the right to abstain from Pro creation. The court also said that women’s privacy,
dignity and bodily integrity must be respected while making decisions about contraception or
sterilization. 35
The judiciary also addressed the issue of unequal access to reproductive health in Lakshmi
Mandal vs Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital, 36 the Delhi High Court linked reproductive rights with the right to healthcare to poor women included under Article 21. In Devika Biswas v.
Union of India, 37 the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of informed and voluntary
consent in sterilization procedures; the court also criticised the excessive burden of
sterilization on women and directed the state to adopt a more balanced approach.
5.2 Expanding Access: X v. Principal Secretary and A (Mother of X)
The scope of reproductive autonomy is significantly expanded in case of X v. Principal
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department. 38 The supreme court held that unmarried
women cannot be treated differently from married women for the purpose of seeking
abortion. 39 Marital status alone cannot be reason to deny a legal abortion to a woman.
Therefore, such distinction is unconstitutional; the court also held that if there is a change in
marital status then women can seek abortion up to 24 weeks.
The court also protected reproductive autonomy of a woman by directing doctors not to demand the consent of the husband or parents of a woman before providing in abortion service. Court also recognised
the pregnancy which is the result of marital rape can also be the ground for the termination of
pregnancy under MTP Act. Therefore, this judgement marks a significant safety in India is
abortion law where abortion is treated as individual rights and reproductive autonomy rather
than only a medical issue. 40
The court adopted a more inclusive approach in A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra 41
where the court recognised the reproductive right should not be limited only to women and
used the broader term “pregnant person”. The “pregnant person” includes transgender men
and non-binary persons for the purpose of providing reproductive autonomy.
5.3 The Retreat: X v. Union of India and the Pending Swati Agarwal Challenge
The development of reproductive rights in India has not always been consistent. In X v.
Union of India (2023), 42 initially to judge, allowed determination of 26 weeks pregnancy
because of her mental health. However, the case was later reconsidered because of the fetus’
viability. There is a difference of opinion between the judges therefore, the case was referred to the larger bench. The larger bench refused to give permission for the termination of pregnancy and upheld the 24 weeks limit.
The court upholds that the 24-week limit cannot be overridden in normal circumstances unless the woman’s life was at risk or there were serious foetal abnormalities. 43 This decision faced greater criticism because it gives more importance to foetal viability than two women’s expressed mental and psychological
suffering. This case demonstrates that the protection of reproductive rights still depends on
how individual courts balance the interests of women and foetuses 44.
In 2019 Swati Agarwal and others constitutionally challenged the MTP Act. This petition 6
Supreme Court to interpret section 3 45 and Section 5 46 of the MTP Act more broadly in favour
of reproductive rights. However, this case is still pending. 47
6. CHALLENGES: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIA’S REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FRAMEWORK
6.1 The Doctor-Centric Statutory Design
The MTP Act has made important progress but its framework still faces three major
concerns. First, there is a difference between reproductive autonomy and medical control.
Even though the court recognizes reproductive autonomy is the constitutional right, the MTP
Act still placed doctors in important places where women have to depend on doctors to
exercise her right to reproductive choice.
Second, the growing importance of foetal viability raises concern that the Supreme Court in X v.Union of India 48 held that foetal viability can be a significant factor in deciding whether abortion is allowed or not, this decision conflicting with the right autonomy based approach in Puttaswamy case and X v. Principal Secretary. 49
Therefore, giving too much unnecessary importance to the foetal viability may restrict the
women’s reproductive choices.
6.2 The Fragility of a Discretion-Based Right
The reproductive rights may be recognised as an important part of Article 21 but it will be
meaningful only when a person can actually exercise it under the MTP Act. A woman has to
depend on the opinion of the Medical Board to exercise her reproductive choices which led to
the uncertainty. The pending Swati Agarwal case provides the Supreme Court with an
opportunity to examine the constitutional validity of the medical board’s opinion. Such
decisions bring more clarity than whether reproductive autonomy is a genuine right or mere a
conditional permission.
6.3 The PCPNDT-MTP Conflict and Sex-Selective Abortion
Another important issue is the maintaining balance between MTP Act which legally
permitted the abortion in certain circumstances and Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic
Techniques Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act) 50 which prohibit sex determination and sex selective
abortion the challenge is to protect to reproductive autonomy without allowing abortion laws
to be misused for the sex selection abortion.
In Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes v. Union of India, 51 the Supreme Court found that the PCPNDT Act is not properly implemented and directed the centre for proper enforcement of the regulation. However, enforcement remains weak and new forms of medical consultation have arisen, such as online
ultrasound consultations, which make implementation even more difficult. 52
The 2021 Amendment to MTP Act made regulation even more difficult by allowing abortion
at later stage in certain circumstances the challenge is to protect women reproductive
autonomy without rendering the abortion service as a mean of sex election this issue is still
serious as the data shows the child sex ratio fell from 927 girls per 1000 boys in 2001 to 914
in 2011 with various States where the figure is even below 900. 53
6.4 Exclusionary Family Law: The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
Reproductive autonomy not only includes the right to terminate pregnancy but also includes
the freedom to have a child and creates a family through assisted reproductive methods. But
the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, 54 restricts their surrogacy to certain women based on
their marital status. It allowed surrogacy mainly for married hetrosexual couples and for divorced and widowed women between 35 to 45 years of age. 55 Unmarried women, single men and same sex couples are excluded.
This raises a question of equality: why the right to build a family depend on a person’s marital status? This concern was also highlighted by Delhi High Court in 2023 where the court asked the central government to explain why unmarried women are differently treated from divorced or widowed women. 56
6.5 The Marital Rape Exception as an Unaddressed Reproductive Harm
The protection of reproductive rights is difficult when marital rape remains outside the
definition of rape under the Exception 2 to Section 63 57 of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023
(BNS, 2023) which protects husbands from prosecution for non-consensual intercourse with
his wife. In Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka, 58 The constitutional validity of Exception
2 to Section 3 Of BNS, 2023 is challenged. 59 The critics argued that it is also a reproductive
rights issue because forced sexual intercourse can result in unwanted pregnancy which
directly affects the women’s ability to control her reproductive life. 60
6.6. Practical Barriers to Reproductive Autonomy
The reproductive autonomy is legally recognised but in reality women face practical
difficulties in accessing it, poor health infrastructure especially in rural areas, lack of
awareness about the abortion laws and shortage of trained doctors make the access difficult.
Social stigma regarding pregnancy of unmarried women to discourage women from seeking
care.
7. GLOBAL PRACTICES
7.1 United States: A Cautionary Tale
In the USA abortion laws have evolved through various judicial interpretations. In Roe v.
Wade, 61 The USA Supreme Court recognised abortion as a part of the right to privacy.
However, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 62 the court overruled the Roe
case 63 and ruled that the USA constitution does not provide the right to abortion. The issue is
left on the state and states were allowed to make laws on a person which leads to differences
in abortion law across the country. So the USA is an example which shows the uncertainty in
abortion law.
7.2 France and Comparative Lessons for India
France expressly protected the freedom to have an abortion by amending its constitution in
2024 64 Therefore, it insulated reproductive rights from the future judicial and legislative
reversal. Unlike France, India does not mention this right expressly in the Indian constitution
rather the judiciary made a broad interpretation of Article 21 to include reproductive
autonomy at the same time India also does not seen any reversal of right as seen in USA after
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 65 Therefore India should strengthen
reproductive rights by a clear legislature instead of depending only on judicial interpretations.
8. SUGGESTIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Reforming the MTP Act’s Consent Architecture
The MTP Act should give more importance to the informed consent of a woman and once the
women give, the concerned doctor should mainly decide whether the abortion is medically
safe rather than whether women are legally entitled to abortion. The legislature should also
fix the time limit within which the medical board has to render its opinion in order to avoid
unnecessary delay. 66
8.2 Strengthening PCPNDT Enforcement and Data Systems
The government should ensure the proper implementation of PCPNDT Act by introducing
real time digital reporting for register ultrasound and genetic testing centres the law should
also extend to cover the tele medicines and cross border sex determination services district
wise of sex ratio at birth can help to identify the area where sex selection may be taking place
and allow authorities to take proper action.
8.3 Reforming the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
The parliament should amend the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, 67 In order to remove the
prohibition based on marital status and age, unmarried women and same sex couples also
have equal access to surrogacy. 68 This would make surrogacy law more consistent with MTP
Act and ensure marital status should not be a deciding factor for a person’s ability to form a
family.
8.4 Criminalising the Marital Rape Exception
They exclusion of marital rape from the definition of rape under section 63 of Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 69 should be removed the supreme court should address this issue by
deciding the Hrishikesh Sahoo case 70 and parliament should remove it by an amendment
recognising marital rape would protect married women from forced sex and provide legal
remedy against unwanted pregnancy. 71
8.5 Expanding Telemedicine and Rural Access
The abortion services should be made accessible to women in ruler and semi urban areas.
This can be done when the government approves the portion centres and trained practitioners
more in number in ruler and same year areas.
8.6 Awareness, Training and Grievance Redressal
Awareness programs regarding reproductive rights should be conducted regularly in rural
areas for women and healthcare workers. The government should provide regular training to Auxiliary Nurse Midwives (ANM) and Accredited Social Health Activist workers (ASHA)
on the 2021 amendments to MTP Act. 72 This would help women in rural areas to access legal
abortion services.
9. CONCLUSION
India’s reproductive rights jurisprudence shows the significant constitutional progress and
certain limitations the supreme court expanded Article 21 to include the reproductive right as
a constitutional right in Manika Gandhi v. Union of India case 73 and the Puttaswamy case. 74
However, after all these development there are certain limitations like restriction under
PCPNDT Act 75 and Surrogacy Act 76 and medical gate keeping and marital rape exceptions,
continue to limit productive autonomy of a woman.
Therefore, India’s approach should extends beyond judicial protection and provides statutory
protection to reproductive choice and places women at the centre of reproductive decision
making.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Constitution and Legislation
- India Constitution
- Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971
(India). - Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, No. 8, Acts of
Parliament, 2021 (India). - The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India).
- The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023 (India).
- Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection)
Act, 1994, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1994 (India). - Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Dec.
18, 1979, 1249 U.N.T.S. 13.
Cases - A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2024) 5 SCR 470 (India).
- Ctr. for Enquiry into Health & Allied Themes v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 398
(India). - Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) AIR 4405 (India).
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
- Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka, S.L.P. (Crl.) filed May 10, 2022 (India)
(pending). - Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
- Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hosp. & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 8853 of 2008
(Delhi H.C. 2010) (India). - Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 13 SCR 989 (India).
- Swati Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) filed Apr. 29, 2019
(India) (pending). - X v. Principal Secy., Health & Family Welfare Dep’t & Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC
1321 (India). - X v. Union of India, order dated Oct. 9, 2023, and final judgment dated Oct. 16, 2023
(India).
Books and Articles
References
1 Student, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.), Iswar Saran Degree College, University of Allahabad, Prayagraj.
2 India Const. art. 21.
3 Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 13 SCR 989 (India).
4 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
5 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
6 Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, No. 57, Acts of
Parliament, 1994 (India).
7 Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
8 X v. Union of India, order dated Oct. 9, 2023, and final judgment dated Oct. 16, 2023 (India).
9 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
10 Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, No. 8, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
11 India Const. art. 21.
12 India Const. art. 14.
13 India Const. art. 15.
14 India Const. art. 21.
15 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
16 Id.
17 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
18 India Const. art. 21.
19 India Const. art. 14.
20 India Const. art. 15.
21 India Const. art. 15, cl. 3
22 India Const. art. 47.
23 India Const. art. 51, cl. (c).
24 India Const. art. 253.
25 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women art. 12, Dec. 18, 1979, 1249
U.N.T.S. 13.
26 Nargis Bano, An Assessment of the Women’s Reproductive Choice in India in the Light of Article 12 of
CEDAW, 6(6) Indian J.L. & Legal Rsch. 1170, 1172 (2025).
27 The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §§ 312-316 (India) (largely re-enacted in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
§§ 88-93).
28 Legal Service India, Constitutionality of Abortion Laws in India,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1691-constitutionality-of-abortion-laws-in-india.html (last
visited Aug. 25, 2026).
29 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
30 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3(2) (India), as amended in 2021.
31 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3(2-B) (India), as inserted by the 2021 Amendment.
32 K&S Partners, Reproductive Autonomy and Abortion Law in India, KS&K (2023),
https://ksandk.com/constitutional/reproductive-autonomy-and-abortion-law-india/.
33 Legal Service India, Reproductive Autonomy v. Statutory Limits Under the MTP Act,
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/Legal-Articles/reproductive-autonomy-vs-statutory-limits-under-the-mtp-
act/ (last visited Aug. 25, 2026).
34 Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Admin., (2009) 13 SCR 989 (India).
35 Id.
36 Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hosp. & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 8853 of 2008 (Delhi H.C. 2010) (India).
37 Devika Biswas v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) AIR 4405 (India).
38 X v. Principal Secy., Health & Family Welfare Dep’t & Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1321 (India).
39 Id.
40 Petrie-Flom Center, India’s Top Court Affirms Reproductive Rights, Extends Abortion Access to Unmarried
Women, Harv. L. Sch. Bill of Health (Oct. 17, 2022), https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/10/17/india-
abortion-supreme-court-ruling/.
41 A (Mother of X) v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., (2024)
42 X v. Union of India, order dated Oct. 9, 2023 (India).
43 X v. Union of India, final judgment dated Oct. 16, 2023 (India) (three-judge bench, per Chandrachud, C.J.).
44 Aravind Sundar, Uncertainty of Abortion: A Case Comment on X v. Union of India, L. Sch. Pol’y Rev. (Nov.
27, 2023), https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2023/11/27/uncertainty-of-abortion-a-case-comment-on-x-v-
union-of-india/.
45 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 3 (India).
46 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, § 5 (India).
47 Swati Agarwal & Ors. v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) filed Apr. 29, 2019 (India) (pending).
48 X v. Union of India, order dated Oct. 9, 2023 (India).
49 X v. Principal Secy., Health & Family Welfare Dep’t & Anr., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 1321 (India).
50 Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, No. 57, Acts
of Parliament, 1994 (India).
51 Ctr. for Enquiry into Health & Allied Themes v. Union of India, (2003) 8 SCC 398 (India).
52 Anantam IAS, PCPNDT Act, 1994: Ban on Sex Selection — Complete Guide (2026),
https://anantamias.com/pcpndt-act/.
53 Id.
54 Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
55 An Argument for the Inclusive Right to Parenthood by Surrogacy in India, JURIST (Mar. 22, 2024),
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2024/03/an-argument-for-the-inclusive-right-to-parenthood-by-surrogacy-
in-india.
56 Delhi High Court Asks Centre to Explain Exclusion of Single, Unmarried Women from Surrogacy Law,
Tribune India (Oct. 16, 2023), https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/delhi/delhi-high-court-asks-centre-to-
explain-exclusion-of-single-unmarried-women-from-surrogacy-law-553795/amp.
57 The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 2023, § 63, Exception 2 (India).
58 Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka, S.L.P. (Crl.) filed May 10, 2022 (India) (pending before the Supreme
Court).
59 Till Consent Do Us Part: The Marital Rape Exception and India’s Constitutional Deficit, LSE Human Rights
Blog (Jan. 14, 2025), https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2025/01/14/till-consent-do-us-part-the-marital-rape-
exception-and-indias-constitutional-deficit/.
60 International Institute for Population Sciences, National Family Health Survey-5 (2019-21): India Fact Sheet
4 (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Gov’t of India 2021) (recording that 29.3 per cent of ever-married
women aged 18-49 reported having experienced spousal violence).
61 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
62 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
63 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
64 Aboli Jakhar, Reproductive Rights of Women in India, 7(2) Voice of Creative Rsch. 1, 8 (2025).
65 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
66 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
67 Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
68 Spice Route Legal, Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Feb. 27, 2024),
https://spiceroutelegal.com/publications/surrogacy-regulation-act-2021/.
69 Spice Route Legal, Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Feb. 27, 2024),
https://spiceroutelegal.com/publications/surrogacy-regulation-act-2021/.
70 Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka, S.L.P. (Crl.) filed May 10, 2022 (India) (pending).
71 Women Share Anguish of Fleeing Abusive Husbands in India Where Marital Rape Isn’t a Crime, CBC News
(Oct. 12, 2024), https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-marital-rape-law-supreme-court-case-1.7351968.
72 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
73 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India).
74 Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1 (India).
75 Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, No. 57, Acts
of Parliament, 1994 (India).
76 Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
Disclaimer: This article is published for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or professional counsel. It does not create a lawyer–client relationship. All views and opinions expressed are solely those of the author and represent their independent analysis. Times Law does not endorse, verify, or assume responsibility for the author’s views or conclusions. While editorial standards are maintained, Times Law, the author, and the publisher disclaim all liability for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from reliance on this content. Readers are advised to consult a qualified legal professional before acting on any information herein. Use of this article is at the reader’s own risk.
