Why in the News?

The Supreme Court has ruled that age limits prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 do not apply retrospectively to couples who had frozen their embryos and initiated the surrogacy process before January 25, 2022, the date when the law came into effect.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Constitutional Findings:

• No Retrospective Disqualification: The age restrictions introduced by the 2021 law cannot apply retrospectively to cases where medical procedures had already begun.
• Equality in Conception Modes: Justice Nagarathna emphasised that couples conceiving through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) must enjoy the same constitutional protection as those conceiving naturally.
• Article 21 & Reproductive Autonomy: The Court reaffirmed that the right to reproductive choice including IVF, ART, or surrogacy, forms part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21.
• Article 14 & Equality Before Law: Retrospective age-based exclusion was termed arbitrary and unreasonable, amounting to a violation of equality.
• Parenting Competence Argument Rejected: The Court rejected the notion that older parents are inherently less capable, stating that state authorities cannot retrospectively judge parenting ability once medical procedures have been initiated lawfully.
• Non-Retroactivity Principle: Reinforced the rule that unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, it operates prospectively.
• Precedent Applied: Relied on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Court recognised reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity as constitutionally protected rights.

Issues Highlighted by the Supreme Court:

• Absence of Transitional Provisions: The 2021 Act lacks a “grandfather clause” protecting couples already in process before its commencement.
• Inconsistent Standards: The Court questioned why adoption laws have no upper age limit, while surrogacy does, creating unequal treatment among parents.
• Gender Discrimination: Restricting surrogacy access to only married couples and excluding unmarried women was flagged as a potential Article 14 violation.
• Fundamental Rights Impact: Retrospective restrictions infringe upon the right to equality and reproductive freedom under Articles 14 and 21.
• State Overreach: The Court cautioned that the state’s intent to protect child welfare cannot override individual liberty or invalidate rights exercised under prior legal norms.

Significance of the Judgment:

• Reinforcement of Reproductive Rights: Confirms that assisted reproduction and surrogacy fall within the ambit of reproductive autonomy and personal liberty.
• Protection Against Legal Injustice: Shields couples who initiated lawful medical procedures from retrospective disqualification.
• Constitutional Precedent: Establishes that statutory changes cannot nullify pre-existing lawful rights, strengthening India’s jurisprudence on non-retroactivity.
• Judicial Balance: Maintains a balance between ethical regulation of surrogacy and protection of individual autonomy.
• Wider Applicability: Permits similarly placed couples to seek relief before respective High Courts, widening the ruling’s scope.
• Affirmation of Constitutional Morality: The Court underscored that justice, equity, and good conscience must guide interpretation where legislation creates unintended inequities.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now