Latest news with #KVViswanathan
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Health
- Indian Express
Before the Supreme Court, questions over the age cap in surrogacy law
The Supreme Court this week reserved its verdict in a clutch of petitions challenging the age cap for couples seeking to have a child through surrogacy, especially those couples who had started the process before the current law on this matter was enacted by Parliament. The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, prescribe the legal framework for surrogacy. Together, these laws lay down age limits on those intending to have a child through surrogacy. The intending woman, if married, must be between 23 and 50 years of age; fathers must be between 26 and 55, and single women must be between the ages of 35 and 45 years. The case before SC Several writ petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court by couples who find themselves stuck in the process due to a change in the law on surrogacy. Essentially, they had begun their treatment before the enactment of the law, but the new law's age limits make them ineligible for surrogacy. A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan heard three petitions filed by couples requesting eligibility certificates under the Surrogacy Act, arguing that they had initiated the process before the Act was brought in. In one of the petitions, the husband is 62 years old, while the wife is about 56 years old. The couple lost their only child in 2018 and, desirous of having another child, began fertility procedures in 2019. After facing delays due to the disruptions induced by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were able to eventually arrange for an embryo transfer in early 2022. The petition states that their pregnancy was unsuccessful — and by the time they sought to proceed with another transfer, they had crossed the age limit laid down by the surrogacy law. The petitioners argued that the retrospective application of these conditions was unreasonable, especially when medical procedures were already underway at the time the Act came into force. They also submitted that the age limit created an unreasonable classification, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, and also interfered with reproductive autonomy, which is a facet of Article 21, which protects personal liberty. Regulatory laws usually offer transitional safeguards for those navigating compliance during a legislative shift. These provisions are called 'grandfather clauses', which 'grandfather in' certain existing situations. The Surrogacy Act has no such transitional clauses. The petitioner's challenge also raised broader concerns, including the right of single, unmarried women to pursue parenthood through surrogacy, a choice that the current law does not accommodate. Provisions of the law The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, enacted in January 2022, together ban commercial surrogacy and allow only altruistic surrogacy. According to the government, this change in law was intended to prevent the commodification of reproductive labour and to impose procedural safeguards to ensure that surrogacy is used only in cases of medical necessity. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act lays down eligibility conditions for couples intending to seek surrogacy. The law states that for intending couples, the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age, and the man between 26 and 55 years. The process requires the couple to obtain a certificate of essentiality, which includes proof of infertility, a court order establishing parentage and custody, and insurance for the surrogate. Single women are eligible only if they are widows or divorcees between the ages of 35 to 45. This is under challenge before the SC on the grounds that the definition of single women excluding unmarried women is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The SC has not taken up this issue in the current batch of petitions for adjudication. Court's questions The government has defended the age restrictions on grounds of medical safety. It has said that the statutory age caps are based on recommendations from medical experts, and align with practices in reproductive health. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati argued that the age limits align with natural reproductive timelines, which she said is necessary for protecting the welface of the child. When the ASG mentioned the risks associated with geriatric pregnancies, Justice Nagarathna pointed out that some couples 'will take the risk' anyway. Essentially, the Bench asked why surrogacy as an option must be outlawed for an older couple when natural geriatric pregnancies are not outlawed. The ASG responded that advanced parental age influences both an unborn child's health through genetic and epigenetic changes, and also the filial love that a child requires for 20 years of their life. 'Rational nexus to the object of the Act is absent by having this age bar, especially as there is a void regarding not taking care of the couples who have already commenced. Genuine intending couples who had commenced surrogacy, the Act doesn't care for them and puts an embargo. Stop, no children! Look how harsh it is,' Justice Nagarathna said, emphasising that the Surrogacy Act's intent is to prevent commercial surrogacy, not genuine parenthood.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
SC questions age restriction for surrogacy
NEW DELHI: Questioning the restrictions under surrogacy laws, including age limit on intended parents and surrogate mothers, Tuesday said laws shouldn't frustrate the wish of childless couples, widows and divorcees to become parents through surrogacy. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Instead, the laws should frustrate commercial surrogacy. A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan said present laws seem "harsh" to those wanting to take the surrogacy route to parenthood. The bench is examining provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The laws set age limits for intended parents and surrogate mothers. An intended mother must be aged between 23 and 50, and the intended father between 26 and 55 years. Further, a surrogate mother must be married and between 25 and 35 years of age, have a biological child, and only act as a surrogate once in her lifetime. If couple in their 50s, 60s can adopt, why can't they have surrogate child, asks SC Laws allow single women (widowed or divorced) between ages 35 and 45 to pursue surrogacy. Appearing for the govt, additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati defended the provisions, saying the age bar was needed to ensure a child's welfare and to prevent commercial surrogacy. She said the limits were also set keeping in mind the genetic quality of gametes and urged the court to refrain from passing an interim order. The bench, however, said rationality was lacking in the provision and asked why a single woman could not go for surrogacy. "If she is a widow or a divorcee then she needs it more. Look at the void in her life... Rationality and object are absent. Look how harsh it is," the bench observed. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It said if a couple in their 50s and 60s can adopt, then why can't they have a surrogate child. SC reserved its order on a plea of three petitioners, seeking its approval to go for surrogacy as they are age barred. They submitted that the laws came into force in 2022 but they started the process much earlier as they froze their embryo in 2012 and 2016, and that they should be allowed to pursue. Bhati argued that there were multiple reasons for freezing embryos, and it might not just be for surrogacy. "Crystallisation of rights happens on implantation of the embryo in the uterus and not just on freezing of embryos," the ASG submitted. She said there are a large number of embryos that might have been frozen earlier but they cannot claim exemption from the law. The court, thereafter, reserved its order on the plea but hinted that it would protect only those who initiated the process before the laws came into force. In one of the cases, the wife is 58 years old and the husband is 64. In the second case, the wife is 53 and the husband 56. Multiple petitions have been filed challenging various provisions of the Acts. One of the petitioners submitted that the laws were discriminatory as it barred a single woman from surrogacy. "The restrictions are wholly discriminatory and without any rational or reason behind it inasmuch as the said restriction is not only infringing fundamental rights of the petitioner, but also violative of the basic human rights of an individual to found a family as recognised by the UN and reproductive rights, which have been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21," the plea said.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
SC clears ambiguity, interprets phrase in Employees' Compensation Act
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the phrase "accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" in a provision of the Employees' Compensation Act would include accidents occurring while commuting between the residence and the place of duty. SC clears ambiguity, interprets phrase in Employees' Compensation Act The court noted that there is "considerable doubt and ambiguity" surrounding this phrase in section 3 of the Act insofar as cases concerning accidents occurring to employees while proceeding to work and vice versa. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan noted that depending on facts, different rulings have interpreted this differently. Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the employer's liability for compensation. "We interpret the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of his employment' occurring in section 3 of the EC Act to include an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established," the bench said. The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a December 2011 Bombay High Court order. The high court had set aside an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge, Osmanabad, which had awarded ₹3,26,140, along with interest, to the family members of a victim who died in an accident while he was on his way to report for duty. The award was ordered in a claim filed under the EC Act. In its verdict, the apex court noted that the deceased was employed as a watchman in a sugar factory and his duty hours were from 3 am to 11 am on April 22, 2003, the day of the accident. The bench said it was undisputed that he was proceeding to his place of duty when the accident occurred at a spot located around five kilometres from the workplace. "In view of the above, considering that the deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman," the bench said. It said as the accident had clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge was justified in ordering the claim under the Act. While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court order and restored the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
SC clears ambiguity, interprets phrase in Employees Compensation Act
Last Updated: New Delhi, Jul 29 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Tuesday said the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" in a provision of the Employees' Compensation Act would include accidents occurring while commuting between the residence and the place of duty. The court noted that there is 'considerable doubt and ambiguity" surrounding this phrase in section 3 of the Act insofar as cases concerning accidents occurring to employees while proceeding to work and vice versa. A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan noted that depending on facts, different rulings have interpreted this differently. Section 3 of the Employees' Compensation (EC) Act, 1923 deals with the employer's liability for compensation. 'We interpret the phrase 'accident arising out of and in the course of his employment' occurring in section 3 of the EC Act to include an accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established," the bench said. The top court delivered its verdict on an appeal challenging a December 2011 Bombay High Court order. The high court had set aside an order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge, Osmanabad, which had awarded Rs 3,26,140, along with interest, to the family members of a victim who died in an accident while he was on his way to report for duty. The award was ordered in a claim filed under the EC Act. In its verdict, the apex court noted that the deceased was employed as a watchman in a sugar factory and his duty hours were from 3 am to 11 am on April 22, 2003, the day of the accident. The bench said it was undisputed that he was proceeding to his place of duty when the accident occurred at a spot located around five kilometres from the workplace. 'In view of the above, considering that the deceased was a night watchman and was dutifully proceeding to his workplace to be well on time, there was a clear nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and his employment as watchman," the bench said. It said as the accident had clearly arisen out of and in the course of employment, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge was justified in ordering the claim under the Act. While allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the high court order and restored the judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Civil Judge. PTI ABA RC view comments First Published: July 29, 2025, 19:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hindustan Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
