Latest news with #Surrogacy(Regulation)Act
Time of India
7 hours 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.
The Hindu
18 hours ago
- Health
- The Hindu
Madras High Court steps in to safeguard twin foetuses of surrogate mother
The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (July 29, 2025), invoked its parens patriae jurisdiction in favour of 19-week-old twin foetuses of a surrogate mother and decided to rectify a significant procedural lapse committed by their intending parents as well as the treating hospital before commencing the surrogacy process. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh took upon himself the responsibility of issuing the 'parentage order' required to be obtained by the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother, from a court of the first class magistrate or above, as mandated under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act of 2021. Stressing upon the usage of the words 'or above' in the legal provision, the judge agreed with advocate A. Shabnam Banu that the High Court too could issue the 'parentage order' in exceptional cases where the interests of the unborn babies, the surrogate mother as well as the intending parents had to be safeguarded. He directed the intending parents and the surrogate mother, involved in the case before him, to appear before the Master court, which functions in the High Court buildings, on August 1 for the purpose of recording their statements with respect to compliance of other procedures such as obtaining insurance coverage. He decided to pass further orders on the writ petitions filed by the intending couple as well as the treating hospital, after receipt of recorded statements from the Master court, on August 7. In the meantime, the hospital was directed to respond to a notice issued to it by the health department and submit a copy in the court. The judge pointed out that though the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act came into force on January 25, 2022, the statutory rules under it were framed much later and so, most people were still unaware of the procedures prescribed under it and its requirements were yet to percolate into the system. What is a parentage order? Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Act categorically states that no surrogacy clinic should initiate the surrogacy process unless the intending couple/intending woman and the surrogate mother obtain a 'parentage order' which shall serve as the birth affidavit regarding the custody of the surrogate child/children after birth. The judge said, before issuing the 'parentage order,' the courts generally satisfy themselves that the intending parents/intending woman do not have any child, either born naturally or through adoption/surrogacy, and that the woman was incapable of having a child naturally due to a medical condition. The courts also ascertain whether the woman who had come forward to bear the foetus was willing to be a surrogate mother for the intending couple and that she had the consent of her husband too, if she was married. Further, she must undertake not to claim parental custody of the baby after he/she is born. The surrogate mother should also agree that the birth certificate could be granted in favour of the intending parents and the latter must also make a statement before the court that they would not abandon the child/children, born through surrogacy, for any reason whatsoever. Further, all parties concerned must assure the court that there was no commercial surrogacy involved and that sufficient insurance coverage too had been taken in favour of the surrogate mother for a period of 36 months to cover the postpartum delivery complications. Therefore, the 'parentage order' was a very important document aimed at declaring the intending couple as the lawful parents of the child/children to be born and it was essential to obtain it before the surrogacy process could be commenced by the treating hospital. The procedural lapse In the present case, the surrogacy process had been initiated without complying with the legal requirement, by Chennai-based GG Hospital which was a pioneer in fertility research. Its counsel contended the hospital had committed a 'bona fide mistake' without giving due attention to the provisions of the new law. The hospital intimated the failure to obtain 'parentage order' to the intending couple only on May 30, 2025 and by that time, the embryo transfer had taken place and the twin foetuses inside the surrogate mother's womb were already 11-weeks old, the court was told. To ensure the efforts taken by the court in the present case to safeguard the bodily autonomy of the surrogate mother and the interests of the unborn babies must not be misused by others in future, Justice Venkatesh made it clear his order could not be cited as a precedent.
New Indian Express
a day ago
- New Indian Express
Case under TGHRC scanner
HYDERABAD: The Telangana Human Rights Commission (TGHRC) has taken suo motu cognisance of alleged illegal surrogacy, baby trafficking and unethical practices at Universal Srushti Fertility Centre in Secunderabad and its associated clinics. In a statement issued on Monday, the Commission said the racket — reportedly involving baby-selling, unauthorised medical procedures and illegal surrogacy — violated the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, healthcare laws and fundamental human rights. 'These activities appear to be led by Dr Athaluri Namrata, proprietor of Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, in collusion with her son Jayant Krishna and others. If proven, these actions would amount to serious violations of constitutional rights, including bodily autonomy, dignity, and protection from exploitation,' the Commission said. The TGHRC directed the principal secretary, health, to submit a detailed report covering action taken, previous complaints and FIRs, list of victims, involvement of officials if any, preventive steps, and the current monitoring mechanism. The next hearing is on August 28.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Illegal surrogacy racket: Telangana Human Rights Commission takes suo moto cognisance
The Telangana Human Rights Commission (THRC) has taken suo motu cognisance of media reports highlighting illegal surrogacy, baby-selling, and unauthorised medical practices at Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, Secunderabad, and its affiliated branches in Hyderabad, Vijayawada, and Visakhapatnam. The Commission, chaired by Justice Shameem Akther, noted that the reports published in newspapers on July 27 and 28 point to serious violations of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act and other healthcare laws. The news articles also allege that an unauthorised sperm collection racket was being run under the name of Indian Sperm Tech Clinic. The Commission directed the Principal Secretary of the Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangana, to submit a comprehensive report by 11 a.m. on August 28, 2025. 'These activities were reportedly carried out under the leadership of Dr Athaluri Namrata, proprietor of Universal Srushti Fertility Centre, in collaboration with her son Jayant Krishna and others. The reports mention that unethical medical procedures were being conducted, including the illegal use of surrogate mothers and sale of infants to couples, amounting to clear breaches of legal and ethical norms,' said their statement. The report sought by the commission must include details of the action taken so far, the status of any prior complaints or FIRs, a list of affected individuals (both donors and recipients), involvement of public officials if any, and information on preventive measures and the current monitoring mechanism.
Time of India
18-07-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Illegal IVF & surrogacy centre busted in Gurgaon; first FIR in Haryana, says CMO
Gurgaon: A fertility clinic that ran an illegal surrogacy and IVF (test tube baby) business in the city has been busted. A team from the health department found the clinic in Sushant Lok 1 was operating a "full-scale IVF and surrogacy setup without following the rules". The clinic, running without proper registration, charged up to Rs 3 lakh for the procedures and arrangements, health officials said. During the inspection, the team seized several registers that listed frozen embryos, egg donations and semen storage. The records showed the clinic was using a large number of egg donors and surrogates, many of them from poor backgrounds. An FIR was lodged at DLF 1 police station on Thursday. Chief medical officer Alka Singh said, "This is the first FIR in Haryana against an IVF centre. We have formed a six-member team of doctors. The team is investigating all such centres in Gurgaon. In this particular case, we received mail from an anonymous source about illegal activities being conducted at the centre. We informed DG (health) and district authorities and carried out a raid. We found several violations. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like No annual fees for life UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo First, the centre was not registered. Second, there was evidence of ongoing IVF, IUI and egg donation procedures being carried out without requisite approvals. We also found 84 embryos." You Can Also Check: Gurgaon AQI | Weather in Gurgaon | Bank Holidays in Gurgaon | Public Holidays in Gurgaon According to the FIR, "During the inspection, Manju Sharma, the clinic's owner, admitted in a signed statement over 80 embryos were being stored at the centre and IVF procedures were being conducted since April-May 2025. She named another partner, Dr Nidhi, and confirmed that the clinic took over operations from the previously known Joyce IVF Centre." "The inquiry found evidence of at least 68 semen samples frozen between April and June 2025, with entries including names of foreign nationals such as Carlus Danielle, Andrew Charles and an Australian couple," the FIR stated. Officials said the clinic violated the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
