Back
Madras HC Clarifies Age Limit Under Surrogacy (Regulation) Act: Woman Eligible Until She Turns 51
The
has issued a landmark ruling providing clarity on age eligibility under the
. In a judgment delivered by Justice Shamim Ahmed, the court held that the statutory age limit of
"between 23 to 50 years"
for an intending mother must be interpreted to include those who have completed their 50th year but have not yet reached the age of 51.
Case Background The petition was filed by a married couple who had lost their son to cardiac arrest and sought to conceive through surrogacy. While the couple successfully obtained an eligibility certificate from the , the dismissed their petition. The lower court reasoned that the first petitioner, who was 50 years, 9 months, and 3 days old at the time of application, had exceeded the 50-year limit. Furthermore, the Magistrate cited the non-examination of the surrogate mother's husband as a fatal procedural lapse.
Arguments Presented The petitioners, represented by , argued that a person remains "50 years old" until they turn 51. They asserted that the Act is a piece of and that the lower court had exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate authority to reassess certificates already issued by the appropriate Board.
The State, represented by , and the Amicus Curiae, , agreed that the Magistrate's interpretation was overly restrictive and lacked a basis in the Act, highlighting that the legislation is intended to facilitate, not hinder, the .
Legal Analysis and Precedents Justice Shamim Ahmed emphasized that the
, must be read as a
. The Court relied on established principles of
, noting that the word "between" used in the context of the age range, combined with the lack of restrictive phrases like
"up to but not including,"
supports an inclusive interpretation.
The Court further referenced and , reinforcing the focus on ethical reproductive practices and the prevention of the commercialization of surrogacy. The Court observed that depriving a person of the opportunity to parenthood based on a pedantic reading of age requirements failed to uphold the constitutional values under .
Key Observations The judgment features several critical observations regarding the role of the judiciary: *
"The Magistrate is not expected to sit in appeal over findings recorded by the
or the
except where fraud, lack of jurisdiction or
is apparent on the face of the record."
*
"If a woman is stated to be aged 50 years, until she attains 51 years, it can be stated that she remains at the age of 50 years."
*
"Proceedings under are beneficial, facilitative and child-centric proceedings and not
."
Court's Decision The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Magistrate in Namakkal, declaring that the interpretation used to deny the petitioners' eligibility was "." The matter has been remanded back to the for fresh consideration. To prevent further delay, the High Court directed the to issue an extension of the eligibility certificate for the petitioners, ensuring their struggle for parenthood is not derailed by administrative expiration caused by litigation. The has been requested to circulate the court's guidelines to all Principal District Judges to ensure consistency and sensitivity in future surrogacy cases.
