SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Kar) 608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Smt. XXXX, Wife of XXXX – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.15824 OF 2023 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION No.22462 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.20476 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.20492 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22468 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22470 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22511 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22515 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22530 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22533 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22536 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22624 OF 2023 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION No.22631 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 18-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI GAUTAM S.BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE A/W., SRI B.S.DATTATREYA, ADVOCATE AND SRI ANKITH JAIN, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent: SRI H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, Adv

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 surrogacy under the Surrogacy Act.

Headnote:(A) Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 - Amendment to Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022 - Notification dated 14-03-2023 challenged by petitioners seeking surrogacy with donor gametes due to medical conditions preventing natural conception - The court recognizes the right to surrogacy under the Act and Rules, emphasizing that forms cannot contravene statutory provisions. (Paras 1, 4, 16, 19, 24)

(B) Judicial Interpretation - The court reiterates that surrogacy is a facet of reproductive rights under Article 21, allowing couples with medical conditions to opt for surrogacy despite the impugned notification. (Paras 11, 12, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, facing medical conditions that hinder natural conception, challenge the amendment prohibiting donor gametes in surrogacy, citing various unsuccessful fertility treatments and the necessity of surrogacy. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The amendment is declared inapplicable to the petitioners, allowing them to pursue surrogacy under the existing legal framework. (Paras 24)

Issues: Whether the notification restricting the use of donor gametes in surrogacy contravenes the Surrogacy Act and the rights of the petitioners. (Paras 16, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the amendment undermines the rights granted under the Surrogacy Act, emphasizing that forms cannot negate statutory provisions. (Paras 19, 24)

Result: Writ petitions allowed in part; petitioners entitled to opt for surrogacy. (Paras 24)

ORDER :

“All love begins and ends with motherhood, by which a woman plays the God. Glorious it is as the gift of nature, being both sacrosanct and sacrificial, though; now again, science has for and sacrificial, though; now again, science has forced us to alter our perspective of motherhood”.- ROBERT BROWN.

Science or scientific development never ceases to surprise us; it always outmaneuvers us. We humans, therefore, should either change or become immaterial. Law is no exception. It is now the turn of law to appreciate, the variance in the concept of the divine duty, of motherhood metamorphosing, into split motherhood, albeit, in certain circumstances. The turn to appreciate this dichotomy forms the fulcrum of the issue in the lis and becomes the kernel of the conundrum.

2. Conglomeration of these cases raise a common challenge. The petitioners, in all these cases, seek to challenge the amendment brought about to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022, in terms of the notification dated 14-03-2023 issued by the Union of India, with particular challenge to the amendment to clause (1)(d) of Form No.2 of the Surrogacy Regulations. Therefore, they are considered together by this common order. I deem it appropriate to notice the facts petition by petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

W.P.No.15824 of 2023:

The petitioners are again husband and wife who get married in the year 2007. Being desirous of expanding their family, tired to conceive naturally, but have been unsuccessful for the last 16 years since the 1st petitioner is having bulky uterus with thick endometrium which hindered conceiving naturally. Therefore, are left with the only option surrogacy. Since, the notification prohibits it, they call in question the notification, as in the companion petitions.

W.P.No.22462 of 2023:

This petition is taken up as the lead petition. The petitioners get married on 26-05-2014. The 1st petitioner desirous of motherhood tries to conceive a child naturally and has been unsuccessful for the last 9 years. It is the averment in the petition that several unsuccessful procedures between the years 2019 and 2021 using her own eggs and her husband’s sperm resulted in successful pregnancy, but suffered from early miscarriage and had to undergo 3 laparoscopic surgeries to her uterus. It is averred that despite considerable efforts, her uterus still harbors multiple uterine fibroids that intrude upon the uterine cavity. All efforts have been in vain, the risk of miscarriage looms large on every ensuing pregnancy is the medical opinion. Therefore, it is a case where the 1st petitioner cannot naturally conceive. Left with no choice the viable option left was surrogacy, but the impugned notification comes in the way of the intending couple, in as much as it prohibits using of a donor egg during surrogacy.

W.P.No.20476 of 2023:

The petitioners get married on 16-11-2016. Efforts of 7 years have led the couple nowhere for expansion of the family due to the 1st petitioner being a patient of “CKD” – Chronic Kidney Disease. Therefore, the grave medical condition has left the couple with no choice, but to opt for surrogacy. The option is taken away by the impugned notification.

W.P.No.20492 of 2023:

The petitioners are husband and wife having got married in the year 2018 and all the efforts of expansion of family have been in vain due to poor heart condition of the 1st petitioner. Therefore, the only method of becoming a mother was through surrogacy, which also is now rendered impossible due to the impugned notification. The impossibility is what has driven the petitioners to this Court.

W.P.No.22468 of 2023:

The petitioners are a couple who have got married on 12-10-2017 and have been unsuccessful for the last 6 years to expand the family on account of poor ovarian reserve and low quality of eggs. All methods medically av

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top