Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shikhil Shiv Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Manek Kalyaniwalla, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Riddhi Jad, Adv. Ms. Shivika Mehra, Adv. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Ms. Chitrangda Rashtrawara, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Dixit, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR Ms. Shreya Munoth, AOR Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, AOR Ms. Meenakshi S. Kamble, Adv. Ms. Senha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Swati Vishan, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Mr. Ivan, AOR Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Vivek Mathur, Adv. Mr. Alok K Singh, Adv. Ms. Anita Bafna, AOR Mr. Mayilsamy K, Adv. Mr. Naijal Kumar P, AOR Mr. Kks Krishnaraj, Adv. Mr. Arun Pandiyan S, Adv. Dr. Gayathiri A S, Adv. Mr. Thomas Oommen, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the judgment:

Case Overview * The Supreme Court of India allowed three Writ Petitions and one Interlocutory Application challenging the retrospective application of age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. * The Court held that the age restrictions (50 years for females and 55 years for males) do not apply retrospectively to intending couples who initiated surrogacy procedures before the Act's enforcement on 25.01.2022. * The petitioners were exempted from seeking certification based on age limits to continue their surrogacy procedures, provided they satisfy other conditions under the Act. (!) (!) (!)

Facts of the Cases * Intending Couple No. 1: Began IVF treatment in 2020; successfully retrieved eggs and froze embryos on 26.01.2021. The embryo transfer was stalled due to the COVID-19 pandemic when the Act came into force. (!) (!) (!) * Intending Couple No. 2: Had been attempting to conceive since 2012; created two embryos in 2019 at Southern Cross Fertility Centre, Mumbai. The process was halted by the pandemic, and they became ineligible as the husband crossed the 55-year age limit by 2022. (!) (!) * Intending Couple No. 3 (Applicants in I.A. No. 181569 of 2022): Lost their only child in 2018; underwent egg retrieval and embryo creation in 2019. An embryo was transferred to a surrogate in January 2022, but the surrogate suffered a miscarriage. The couple became ineligible due to age limits (wife 56, husband 62). (!) (!) (!)

Legal Arguments * Petitioners' Argument: The right to surrogacy vested in them prior to the Act's enforcement as an exercise of reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The Act does not expressly state its intention to apply age restrictions retrospectively. Applying them now would take away vested rights and frustrate their constitutional right to parenthood. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) * Respondent's Argument: The object of the Act is to protect surrogate mothers and children born through surrogacy from exploitation and ensure adequate guardianship. The right to surrogacy is statutory, not fundamental, and subject to the conditions laid down in the Act. The transitional provision in Section 53 only protects existing surrogate mothers, not intending couples. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

Court's Reasoning and Findings * Reproductive Autonomy: The Court recognized that the right to pursue surrogacy was part of the constitutional right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 prior to the Act. Since there were no age restrictions before 25.01.2022, the couples possessed an unfettered right to decide to have children via surrogacy regardless of age. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Non-Retrospective Application: The Court applied the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that a statute is presumed to be prospective unless it expressly or by necessary implication has retrospective operation. The Act lacks express words or necessary intendment to apply age limits to transactions already commenced. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Definition of "Commencement": The Court defined the "commencement" of the surrogacy procedure for the purpose of this exemption as the stage where the intending couple has completed the extraction and fertilization of gametes and frozen the embryos with the intention of transferring them to a surrogate mother. This crystallizes their intention and completes Stage A of the process. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Transitional Provision: The transitional provision in Section 53 regarding a 10-month gestation period applies only to existing surrogate mothers to protect their well-being and does not extend to intending couples. (!) (!) (!) (!) * Vested Rights: By completing Stage A (freezing embryos), the intending couples had vested rights that cannot be divested by a subsequent law imposing new disabilities (age limits) without fair notice. (!) (!) (!) (!)

Holding * Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 does not have retrospective operation. * The competent authority must issue eligibility certificates to intending couples who: 1. Commenced the surrogacy procedure prior to 25.01.2022. 2. Were at the stage of embryo creation and freezing (Stage A). 3. Are on the threshold of transferring embryos to the surrogate mother (Stage B). * These couples are exempted from the age qualification requirement for certification. (!) (!) (!) (!)