Gauhati HC Upholds Surrogacy Act Age and Donor Rules

The Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of age-related eligibility criteria and donor gamete restrictions prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 . The judgment delivered by the bench of Hon’ble Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury underscores the judiciary's deference to legislative policy in complex medico-legal matters.

A Quest for Parenthood Stymied

The petitioners, a married couple seeking to overcome infertility via surrogacy, had previously attempted the procedure following a court-sanctioned window. However, subsequent to the failure of their initial attempt, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the subsequent 2023 amendment to Form-2 were implemented. These changes effectively rendered the petitioners ineligible due to age requirements and added restrictions on the use of donor gametes for married couples—restrictions not applicable to certain other categories of petitioners.

The petitioners argued that their reproductive autonomy—a facet of personal liberty under Article 21—was infringed. They contended that their previous attempt created a legitimate expectation and that the enforcement of new legal standards to a "persistent" medical journey was arbitrary.

The Court’s Reasoning

In its detailed analysis, the Court emphasized that while reproductive rights are protected under Article 21, they are not absolute and are subject to reasonable, non-arbitrary restrictions imposed by law. The bench highlighted that the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 was introduced to address critical ethical concerns and protect the welfare of children born through surrogacy.

The Court drew a clear distinction between the current statutory regime and the previous unregulated environment, noting that the Parliament was well within its competence to prescribe age limits prospectively.

Key Observations

The judgment provides significant clarity on why legislative mandates override individual expectations:

• On Legislative Policy: "The Court must accord substantial deference to such legislative policy, particularly in areas involving complex socio-medical considerations."
• On Eligibility: "It is a settled principle that eligibility conditions must be satisfied on the date when the benefit is claimed, unless the statute expressly provides otherwise. The failure of the earlier surrogacy attempt, though unfortunate, does not confer a vested right to re-initiate surrogacy in disregard of subsequently enacted/amended statutory requirements."
• On Classification: "So long as the classification is reasonable, the Courts cannot sit in appeal over legislative policy."
• On Judicial Restraint: "Constitutional adjudication cannot be guided by sympathy alone. The impugned provisions represent a considered legislative policy and do not infringe on Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India."

The Final Verdict

The Gauhati High Court ultimately found no merit in the petitioners' arguments, ruling that the challenged provisions satisfy the proportionality test and are grounded in a rational nexus with the objective of the legislation. The petition was dismissed without costs.

This ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of statutory eligibility criteria in the context of surrogacy in India. For prospective parents, this signifies that legal standing for surrogacy will be strictly bound by the regulations in force at the time of application, regardless of prior medical efforts or personal history. The judgment serves as a stark reminder that while the law may sympathize with personal hardship, it cannot transcend the bounds of clear legislative intent.