Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
BINDU P.P – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners suffered infertility and sought surrogacy. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. age limits under the act do not apply retrospectively to those already in surrogacy. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court allows petitioners to continue surrogacy. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“To declare that Section 4 (iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 does not have retrospective operation and therefore, would not apply to the petitioners, who had already commenced the surrogacy process and had cryopreserved their embryos on 06-02-2020;
ii) To declare that Section 4 (iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 to the extent it defines the maximum age for intending couple to seek Surrogacy services from licensed clinics is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
iii) To declare that Section 4 (iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 to the extent it defines the maximum age for intending couple to seek Surrogacy services is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
iv) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to contin
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
