Back
B. V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN
Arun Muthuvel – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
The eligibility for surrogacy under Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy Rules (stating that a woman may opt for surrogacy if she has no uterus, missing uterus, abnormal uterus, or uterus surgically removed due to medical conditions) is directly quoted in (!) (!) .
This rule is referenced as the basis for eligibility (despite the amendment conflict) in (!) (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detailing applicants' age and condition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's prayers regarding surrogacy regulations. (Para 3) |
| 3. implications of mrkh syndrome on surrogacy eligibility. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. details of surrogacy consent form change. (Para 6) |
| 5. government's rationale behind surrogacy law. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. court's prima facie observation on law applicability. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. procedural directive for medical examination. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER :
1. This interim order concerns the petitioners/applicants in W.P(C)No.830/2023 aged about 38 years; I.A.No.138689/2023 in W.P.(C) No.487/2023 aged about 30 years; I.A.No.191808/2023 in W.P.(C) No.487/2023 aged 30 years; I.A.No.205941/2022 in W.P(C)No.756/2022 aged 28 years and applicant in I.A.No.78519/2023 in W.P(C)No.756/2022 aged 26 years.
2. This is having regard to the nature of the interim order we are passing in these matters which concerns only the petitioners who are stated to be having Mayer-Rokitansky- Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome.
3. For the sake of convenience, the prayers sought for by the petitioner ABC in W.P(C)No.830/2023 are extracted as under:
The court determines that the retrospective application of surrogacy rules conflicting with existing provisions recognizing disabilities is improper, necessitating medical certification for those aff....
The court affirmed that amendments to surrogacy regulations cannot have retrospective effect, especially when they impede ongoing processes and must align with existing medical regulations.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of aligning amendments to subsidiary rules with the main provisions of the Act and ensuring that the statutory conditions for surrogacy are met.
The court affirmed that the amendment to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022, which restricts donor gametes, is inapplicable to petitioners with medical conditions, preserving their right to surro....
The impugned rules were found to be contrary to the Surrogacy Act and violated the petitioners' rights under the Constitution of India, leading to the court's decision to allow the petitioners to pro....
Section 4 deals with regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy procedures.
Legislative imposition of age eligibility for surrogacy does not infringe fundamental rights, as it serves legitimate interests regarding health and welfare of children born from surrogacy.
Age restrictions in surrogacy laws cannot be applied retrospectively to couples who initiated processes prior to enactment, preserving their reproductive rights under constitutional protections.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
