Guidelines restricting eligibility certificate issuance for Surrogate mothers to their district of residence are valid under the Surrogacy Regulation Act, ensuring compliance and proper implementation.

ORDER :

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

This Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2024 passed in W.P. No. 23771 of 2024, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellants herein, rejecting the relief of quashing the proceedings of Respondent No.3 dated 04.03.2024 on the ground that the letter impugned is not ultra vires to the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 and Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are brief as follows:

3. The petitioners herein are intending couple possessing certificate of essentiality for the purpose of surrogacy, issued as per the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021 (Surrogacy Act, hereinafter). They have able to secure a Surrogate mother for the purpose of surrogacy and approached the concerned authorities for issuance of eligibility certificate for the Surrogate mother to undergo Surrogacy procedure. According to the petitioners, the Surrogate mother fulfills the conditions and there is no legal impediment for issuing the eligibility certificate to her. They approached the appropriate Authority and issuance of the certificate was refused on the ground that the Surrogate mother was not hailing from the district in which they have made application for issuance of the eligibility certificate. The reasons stated by the Authorized Officer is that the guidelines issued by the State Authority, prescribes a condition that the eligibility certificate for a Surrogate mother shall be issued only from the district, where the Surrogate mother is hailing/ residing. This guideline issued by the State Authority/ third respondent herein is against the rules prescribed under the Surrogacy Act and it had caused prejudice to the intending couple and their right to have a child. Thereby, the petitioners have come forward with a writ of certiorari, seeking declaration to declare that the guidelines issued by the State Authority is ultravirus to the rules of the Surrogacy Act and to quash the guidelines of the State Authority dated 04.03.2024.

4. On the side of the respondents, it was reported that the eligibility certificate has to be issued by the District Medical Board and for the purpose of guiding the Officials and for the purpose of protecting the interest of the persons, who are involved in the surrogacy procedures, including the intending couple and Surrogate mother, impugned letter in the form of clarification issued. There is no violation of any rules or rights of the petitioners.

5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties has accepted the case of the respondents and held that the guidelines/ impugned letter issued are not violating the Surrogacy Act or Rules or the rights of the parties and dismissed the writ petition.

6. Aggrieved over the same, this writ appeal is filed.

The Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:

7. The learned counsel for the appellants/ petitioners submitted that the Form-17 B have been prescribed as per the rules under the Surrogacy Act, which reads that the Surrogate mother shall get the certificate from the appropriate authority. It has not prescribed the condition that this certificate shall be issued only by the appropriate authority from the district where the Surrogate mother is hailing/ residing. He further submitted that there is no provisions regarding the persons, who have to issue the eligibility certificate to the Surrogate mother, prescribed under the rules of surrogacy, hence the guideline stating that the Surrogate mother should get the eligibility certificate from the appropriate authority of the district from where the Surrogate mother is hailing is not valid and it has caused prejudice to the intending couple and Surrogate mother, thereby prays this Court to quash the impugned proceedings.

The Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 2 to 4:

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the prescribed guidelines are not new guideli