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.