26-04-2025
SC seeks response from govt. on plea challenging bar on single, divorced men from becoming parents through surrogacy
The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Centre on a petition filed by a 45-year-old divorced and single man claiming his right to be a biological parent through surrogacy.
A Bench headed by Justice B.V. Nagarathna issued notice to the Union government on the plea by Bengaluru resident, Maheshwara M.V., who said it was unconstitutional to exclude single, divorced men from availing surrogacy under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which restricts eligibility solely to legally married couples and widowed or divorced women, thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to a dignified life) of the Constitution.
Also Read | Why were the surrogacy rules modified? | Explained
The petitioner, represented by advocate Mohini Priya, urged the court for a judicial declaration of his right to exercise his constitutionally protected right to reproductive autonomy and become a biological parent through gestational surrogacy using his own gametes and donor eggs, as facilitated under the Surrogacy Act.
The plea said the legitimate aspiration of single divorced men to avail surrogacy was unjustly, irrationally and arbitrarily denied solely on the grounds of gender and marital status, despite the very same Act, under Section 2(1)(s), expressly permitting divorced women aged 35-45 to access surrogacy.
The petition pointed to the rising divorce rates, especially in urban areas. 'As per the 2011 Census, over 1.36 million men were divorced or separated, a number likely higher today with increasing divorce filings (e.g., 1.7% annual rise reported in urban areas per National Crime Record Bureau data). Studies indicate remarriage is significantly harder for men due to societal stigma, age, and financial burdens post-divorce, making it a formidable task to have biological children through traditional means,' it said.
The denial of surrogacy rights to the single divorced men like the petitioner was not based on any scientific, logical, or child welfare considerations. It was a regressive, exclusionary policy rooted in outdated patriarchal norms, he argued.
'The state has no compelling interest in restricting surrogacy based on gender or marital status, making such exclusion unjustifiable, oppressive and unconstitutional,' the petition contended.
