Type: SC Judgements

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.

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that women of the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, are entitled to inherit ancestral property, even where no explicit tribal custom confers this right.

Supreme Court Verdict on Gond Women’s Inheritance Rights:

• Background: Case concerned women of the Gond Scheduled Tribe seeking equal inheritance rights over their maternal grandfather’s ancestral property.
• Lower Court Rulings: The trial court and Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea, holding that no tribal custom granted such rights and placing the burden of proof on the women.
• Supreme Court Review: On 17 July 2025, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi examined whether constitutional equality overrides unwritten tribal customs excluding women from succession.
• Legal Context: Under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Scheduled Tribes are excluded unless specifically notified—none apply to Gonds—so the dispute was governed by customary tribal law.

Supreme Court’s Ruling:

• Presumption of Equality: The Court reversed lower findings, holding that equality must be presumed unless a proven, valid custom denies it.
• Burden of Proof: Stated that custom cannot be presumed; it must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, proven through credible evidence.
• Gender Justice: Rejected patriarchal inferences drawn from Hindu traditions, asserting such predispositions have “no place” in the case.
• Guiding Principle: In absence of valid custom, courts must decide per “justice, equity, and good conscience.”

Constitutional Principles Applied:

• Article 14: Ensures equality before law; male-only inheritance lacks rational basis.
• Article 15(1):  Prohibits sex-based discrimination; used to strike down exclusion of women.
• Article 38: Mandates elimination of inequality across social and gender lines.
• Article 46:  Requires protection of Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and injustice.
• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cited for illustrating gender-equal intent, not direct applicability.

Constitutional–Customary Balance:

• Conflict: Between tribal autonomy under Fifth/Sixth Schedules and constitutional equality under Part III.
• Precedent Shift: Unlike Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), which upheld male-only inheritance, the 2025 ruling held that when custom is unproven or discriminatory, Article 14 prevails.
• Significance: Moves jurisprudence from deference to custom toward enforcement of constitutional morality, ensuring tribal women’s equal property rights.

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional obligation, not a mere formality. Failure to comply makes the arrest illegal, violating Articles 22(1) and 21, which protect fundamental rights and personal liberty.

About Article 22 of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 22 of the Indian Constitution ensures protection to individuals against arbitrary arrest and preventive detention.
• It has two parts:

1. Article 22(1) & 22(2) – Protection in Ordinary Arrests:

• The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
• The person has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
• They must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.

2. Article 22(3) to 22(7) – Preventive Detention Provisions:

• Preventive detention without trial cannot exceed 3 months, unless approved by an Advisory Board.
• The government may deny disclosure of reasons if it affects public interest.
• Parliament can extend detention beyond 3 months in special cases.

Key Highlights of Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment:

• The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right.
• Non-compliance violates both Articles 22(1) and 21 (Right to Liberty), rendering the arrest invalid.
• Grounds of arrest must be clearly conveyed in an effective manner.
• Providing the grounds in writing is the best practice (as suggested in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India).
• As per Section 50A of CrPC, the accused’s family or nominated person must also be informed to allow legal representation.
• Magistrates must ensure compliance. If Article 22(1) is not followed, the arrest is illegal, and the accused must be released.
• Violation of Article 22(1) is a ground for Bail. Even if statutory restrictions on bail exist, courts can grant bail if fundamental rights are violated.
• If the accused claims non-compliance, the Investigating Officer must prove that Article 22(1) was followed.

Why in the News?

• The Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
  • The court asserted that any discrimination against Muslim women in matters of alimony under the secular laws of the country would be regressive and against gender justice, equality.

Context and Historical Perspective:

• Shah Bano Case (1985): The court referenced the landmark Shah Bano case, which affirmed Muslim women’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
• Danial Latifi Case (2001): It highlighted subsequent interpretations ensuring that the 1986 Act does not deprive Muslim women of rights under Section 125.
• Rejection of Restrictions: The court rejected restrictive interpretations that could hinder gender justice and emphasized the importance of providing adequate maintenance, not minimal amounts, to destitute Muslim women.
• Continuation of Section 144: The judgment noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which has replaced the CrPC, retains the older provision on alimony under Section 144.

Implications and Legal Precedent

• Equality under Law: The judgment reinforces the principle that Muslim women have the same legal recourse as women of other faiths under Section 125 of the CrPC.
• Additional Remedies: It affirmed that provisions like the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, do not exclude rights under Section 125.