Supreme Court Probes Surrogacy Act's Retrospective 'Harshness' on Age-Barred Couples

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has reserved its order on a critical legal question with profound implications for reproductive rights: whether couples who initiated the surrogacy process by freezing embryos before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, came into force can be barred from parenthood by the Act's stringent upper age limits. The decision will have a significant impact on the interpretation of vested rights and the retrospective application of new legislation.

A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard arguments in a batch of petitions, including the lead case of Arun Muthuvel v. Union of India , which challenge various provisions of the 2021 Act. The court's immediate focus, however, was narrowed to the plight of at least three couples who find themselves in a legal limbo—having invested emotionally, physically, and financially in assisted reproductive technology (ART) years ago, only to be disqualified by a law enacted mid-process.

The Surrogacy Act, which commenced on January 25, 2022, prescribes an age bracket for intending parents: 23 to 50 years for the woman and 26 to 55 years for the man. The petitioners, including a couple where the husband is now 64 and the wife 58, had their embryos cryopreserved well before this cut-off, but now face an insurmountable legislative barrier to achieving parenthood.

---

The Crux of the Matter: A Legislative Void

During the impassioned hearing, the bench repeatedly highlighted a significant lacuna in the 2021 Act—its complete failure to address transitional cases. Justice Nagarathna pointedly observed that the statute creates a harsh and abrupt disruption for those who had already embarked on their surrogacy journey based on the prior legal framework.

“Your Act is conspicuous with its silence with regards to those who have started the process,” Justice Nagarathna remarked, addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, who represented the Union government. “We are only on those who had started the process already... Genuine intending couples who had commenced surrogacy, the Act doesn't care for them and put an embargo. Stop, no children! Look how harsh it is.”

The court’s observation frames the central legal issue: Can new legislation extinguish rights and legitimate expectations that were established before its enactment, especially without explicit saving or transitional clauses? The petitioners argue that their actions, lawful at the time, created a vested right to continue the surrogacy process, which cannot be retroactively nullified.

Government's Stand: Crystallisation of Rights and Child Welfare

ASG Aishwarya Bhati mounted a robust defence of the age limits, arguing they were neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. She contended that the restrictions are rooted in two primary concerns: aligning surrogacy with natural reproductive timelines to ensure gamete quality, and safeguarding the long-term welfare of the child.

Bhati advanced a critical legal argument regarding the point at which rights in surrogacy become legally concrete. She submitted that the mere act of freezing embryos is insufficient to establish a vested right to surrogacy. "Crystallisation of rights happens on implantation of the embryo in the uterus and not just on freezing of embryos," she argued, suggesting that many embryos are frozen for reasons other than immediate surrogacy. This interpretation would mean that unless implantation occurred before the Act's commencement, the new age limits would apply.

On the child welfare front, the ASG pointed to the advanced age of the petitioners, questioning their capacity to provide care for the requisite 20-plus years. “God’s timeline is stricter,” she stated, noting that the average age of menopause for Indian women is 46.2 years.

The Bench's Scrutiny: Questioning the Rationale

The bench, particularly Justice Nagarathna, remained unconvinced by the government’s rationale, subjecting it to rigorous scrutiny. The court questioned the very premise of imposing an age limit on the intending mother, who does not carry the child in a gestational surrogacy arrangement.

“Having an age limit for a surrogate is understandable, but what is the rationale for prescribing an upper age limit for the intending mother/couple?” Justice Nagarathna asked.

When the ASG cited concerns about the genetic quality of gametes from older parents, the bench countered that such risks are inherent even in natural conception and are a matter for informed consent between the couple and their doctor, not legislative prohibition.

“Why do some couples have a child with Down's syndrome, disability? It's a natural process of birth but even then children have congenital defects,” Justice Nagarathna said. “Can anybody certify that the child will be perfect? See there is no rationale. They will take the risk.”

The court drew a powerful analogy with adoption laws, pointing out that there is no upper age limit for adoptive parents under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act or other regulations. "If a couple in their 50s and 60s can adopt, then why can't they have a surrogate child?" the bench queried, undermining the government's child welfare argument.

Justice Nagarathna emphasized that the primary legislative intent of the Act was to regulate the industry and eliminate commercial exploitation, not to penalize genuine, childless couples. “Object of the Act is to curb commercial surrogacy. Object of the Act is not to frustrate surrogacy for genuine parents,” she asserted, suggesting that the age-bar provision lacks a rational nexus to the Act's stated purpose, particularly for transitional cases.

Broader Challenges and Future Implications

While the Supreme Court has reserved its order on the limited issue of these pre-existing cases, the hearing is part of a much larger challenge to the Surrogacy and ART Acts. The main petition, filed by Chennai-based infertility specialist Dr. Arun Muthuvel, assails multiple provisions, including the complete ban on commercial surrogacy, restrictions on single and unmarried individuals, and the bar on couples who already have a biological child.

The court’s eventual ruling on this interim matter could serve as a bellwether for its approach to the broader constitutional questions. A decision in favour of the petitioners would affirm the principle that legislative changes should not unjustly penalize individuals who have acted in good faith under a previous legal regime. It would signal a protective stance towards reproductive autonomy as a facet of Article 21 and demand a higher standard of legislative drafting that accounts for transitional situations.

Conversely, a ruling upholding the government's position could solidify the legislature's power to enact sweeping changes, even at the cost of individual hardship, and would endorse the "implantation" theory for the crystallisation of rights in ART procedures. For now, the legal community and hopeful parents await a judgment that will not only decide the fate of a few but also shape the contours of family and reproductive law in India for years to come.