Surrogacy in India

Supreme Court upholds Woman’s Right to Parenthood in Surrogacy Case

Note4Students

From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :

Prelims level: Gestational Surrogacy

Mains level: Read the attached story

surrogacy

Central Idea

  • In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has safeguarded a woman’s right to parenthood, particularly in cases of medical conditions, by suspending the enforcement of a law that jeopardized her aspiration to become a mother through surrogacy.
  • This significant ruling provides protection and empowerment for women facing unique medical challenges on their journey to parenthood.

Case Details

  • Medical Condition: The woman suffers from the rare Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Medical records confirm her condition, which includes “absent ovaries and absent uterus,” rendering her unable to produce her own eggs.
  • Hope through Gestational Surrogacy: She and her husband embarked on the path of gestational surrogacy using a donor’s eggs (a process where one person, who did not provide the egg used in conception, carries a fetus through pregnancy and gives birth to a baby for another person or couple.).

Threatening Amendment

  • No donor gamete use: A government notification dated March 14 of the current year introduced an amendment to the law, prohibiting the use of donor gametes in surrogacy. It mandated that “intending couples” must employ their own gametes for the surrogacy process.
  • A Violation of Parenthood Rights: This amendment was challenged in the Supreme Court, alleging a violation of a woman’s fundamental right to parenthood. The court found that the amendment contradicted the core provisions of the Surrogacy Act, both in form and substance.

Gametes Regulation and ART Act, 2021

  • Gametes are reproductive cells. In animals, the male gametes are sperms and female gamete is the ovum or egg cells.
  • On March 14, 2023, the Health Ministry published Rules that said:
  1. A couple undergoing surrogacy must have both gametes from the intending couple and donor gametes are not allowed;
  2. Single women (widow/divorcee) undergoing surrogacy must use self-eggs and donor sperms to avail surrogacy procedure.
  • Section 2(h) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act, 2021 defines a “gamete donor” as a person who provides sperm or oocyte with the objective of enabling an infertile couple or woman to have a child.

Court’s Ruling: Allows Donor’s Gametes

  • Prima Facie Contradiction: The SC Bench issued a decisive order, stating that the amendment obstructed the intending couple from achieving parenthood through surrogacy and was prima facie contrary to the Surrogacy Act’s intentions.
  • Petitioner’s Argument: Senior advocate Sanjay Jain, representing the petitioner, argued that the amendment invalidated the possibility of gestational surrogacy, which the Surrogacy Act, 2021, recognized as a valid option for couples facing medical conditions.
  • Rule 14(a) Clarification: Jain referred to Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy Rules, emphasizing that it explicitly listed medical or congenital conditions, such as the absence of a uterus, as valid reasons for gestational surrogacy. The rule affirmed that the choice was solely the woman’s.
  • Retrospective Implementation: The petitioner contended that the amendment could not be applied retrospectively to her case.

Court’s Ruling and Interpretation

  • Woman-Centric Perspective: The court concurred with Mr. Jain’s argument that gestational surrogacy was “woman-centric.” It recognized that the decision to opt for surrogacy was driven by the woman’s inability to become a mother due to her medical or congenital condition.
  • Validation of Rule 14(a): The court asserted that the amendment could not contradict Rule 14(a), which explicitly acknowledged medical conditions, including the absence of a uterus, as valid reasons necessitating gestational surrogacy.
  • Genetic Relation Interpretation: Addressing the government’s contention that the surrogate child must be “genetically related” to the couple, the court clarified that this related to the husband when Rule 14(a) applied.

Conclusion

  • The Supreme Court’s decision in favour of ‘Mrs. ABC’ not only upholds her right to parenthood but also reinforces the significance of gestational surrogacy as a woman-centric solution for individuals facing challenging medical conditions on their path to becoming parents.
  • This ruling sets a precedent for protecting the parenthood rights of women across India.

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

Attend Now

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

JOIN THE COMMUNITY

Join us across Social Media platforms.

💥Mentorship New Batch Launch
💥Mentorship New Batch Launch