Latest news with #Surrogacy(Regulation)Act
The Hindu
26-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
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 It was a regressive, exclusionary policy rooted in outdated patriarchal norms, he argued.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.
Hindustan Times
26-04-2025
- Health
- Hindustan Times
Man challenges exclusion from surrogacy
A 45-year-old divorced dental surgeon from Karnataka has approached the Supreme Court challenging provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 that exclude single men from accessing surrogacy services, a first-of-its-kind petition that contended parenthood was not a privilege conferred upon a particular gender. A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan issued notice on the petition and sought response from the Union ministry of health and family welfare. The next hearing date was unscheduled. The petitioner, represented by advocate Mohini Priya, contended that the current law permits divorced women aged 35-45 to access surrogacy while denying the same right to divorced men, creating what he terms an 'arbitrary classification' with no rational basis. The petition argued that if the state recognises reproductive autonomy for single divorced women, the same right must be extended to single divorced men. 'Parenthood is not a privilege conferred upon a particular gender but a fundamental right rooted in the principles of equality, dignity, and autonomy,' the petition states, arguing that the provision violates Articles 14 (equality), 19 (fundamental freedoms), and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution. The dental surgeon's petition challenges section 2(1)(s) of the Act, which expressly allows only married couples and single unmarried or divorced women to commission surrogacy. He asserted that these restrictions stem from 'outdated gender stereotypes' that fail to recognise modern family structures. While the Surrogacy Act and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 face existing challenges from IVF specialists, single women, LGBTQ community members, and divorced women regarding gender and age specifications, this marks the first such petition by a divorced man. The petition cites the 2011 Census data showing over 1.36 million divorced or separated men in India—a figure likely higher today—and argues that remarriage presents significant challenges for men due to 'societal stigma, age, and financial burdens post-divorce.' Section 4(iii)(c) of the Act sets upper age limits for commissioning surrogacy at 55 years for men and 50 years for women, while Section 2(1)(s) grants special consideration to widowed and divorced women aged 35-45. The petitioner argues that the absence of an analogous provision for divorced men constitutes discrimination. The petition also references the fundamental right to privacy recognised by the Supreme Court in 2017, arguing that denying single men access to surrogacy 'impinges upon their fundamental right to make reproductive choices.' Additionally, the petitioner links surrogacy rights to paternal responsibilities, including the right to paternity leave under Article 42 of the Constitution, which mandates just working conditions. The petition concludes by noting that several nations including the US, Canada, Israel, and Russia recognise single men's reproductive rights through surrogacy, suggesting India should follow suit in affirming that 'family formation is a matter of individual choice, not restricted by gender or marital status.'
Indian Express
24-04-2025
- Health
- Indian Express
Why Bombay High Court referred surrogacy plea by divorced woman to Supreme Court
The Bombay High Court on Monday (April 21) asked a 38-year-old divorced woman to approach the Supreme Court to address whether a single woman was entitled to have a child through surrogacy. The HC passed this ruling after noting that this larger issue was pending before the Supreme Court, and observed that granting interim relief to her may have wider 'repercussions' and the same may lead to 'commercialisation' of the procedure. What was the case? The petition was filed in 2023 by the then-36-year-old, a divorcee with two biological children in the custody of their father (her ex-husband). The woman contended that she suffered disability to bear the child as she had undergone a 'hysterectomy' in 2012 and her uterus was removed. She got divorced by mutual consent in 2017, with the custody of the children awarded to her ex-husband. She said she has not had access to them since 2017 and 'does not have any mother-child relation' with them. Desiring 'motherhood', the petitioner first consulted her doctor for having a child through assisted reproductive techniques (ART), and was suggested surrogacy. The petitioner said she is capable of using her own eggs for surrogacy, and as a single working woman, she was capable of maintaining herself and had also not remarried. During the pendency of the petition, the concerned Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, on April 11 rejected her application seeking granting certificate of 'medical indication' to undergo consequential procedures required surrogacy. The petitioner said her request was denied as she did not fall under the 'intending woman' category under the Surrogacy Act. On what grounds did the Civil Surgeon reject the application for a certificate for surrogacy? The Civil Surgeon of the District Hospital rejected the plea, citing Section 4(iii)(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The provision stipulated that an 'intending couple' or 'intending woman' is eligible to avail of surrogacy only if they do not have a surviving child – biological, adopted or born through surrogacy. Section 4 relates to 'regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy procedures.' The Hospital said that as per law, an exception is made only in case the existing child suffers from a life-threatening disease with no permanent cure, or is certified by the medical board or appropriate authority as physically or mentally challenged. It noted that the petitioner has two living and healthy biological children from the dissolved marriage, and that their 'custody status' or her not getting remarried would not create an exception for her to become eligible for surrogacy. The Civil Surgeon further emphasised that the eligibility condition takes into account the presence of the surviving child and not the fertility status. The aggrieved petitioner thus sought the High Court's intervention. What do 'surrogacy,' intending couple' and 'intending women' mean under the law? The High Court noted that as per definition in section 2(zd) of the 2021 Act, 'surrogacy' means 'a practice whereby one woman bears and gives birth to a child for an intending couple with the intention of handing over such child to the intending couple after the birth.' Moreover, the 'intending couple,' as per section 2(r) of the Act, means 'a couple who have a medical indication necessitating gestational surrogacy and who intend to become parents through surrogacy.' Section 2(s) of the law provided that an 'intending woman' means an Indian woman who is a widow or divorcee between the ages of 35 and 45 years and who intends to avail surrogacy. What did the Bombay HC observe? A bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna prima facie opined that section 4 of the 2021 Act was required to be examined based on the meanings attributed to the three terms. The Court said that the 'larger issue' was whether 'surrogacy' as defined in the law would take in its ambit 'intending women' as contended by the petitioner, while the said term only refers to 'intending couple.' Justice Kulkarni orally apprehended 'commercialisation of surrogacy,' and questioned what happens if in future an unmarried couple seeks to go for surrogacy but later separates and if the legislation intended the same. The judge asked whether such parenting would be permissible and who would be the father of the child. The bench said the present case may be 'genuine', but granting interim relief would have 'repercussions'. There was an 'implicit' issue of rights of the surrogate child in case of a single woman, and the consideration could not be restricted only to the rights of the woman. The High Court referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan on December 5, 2023. It noted SC is seized of the proceedings on larger issues involved in regard to the rights of unmarried and/or single women to avail childbearing by surrogacy. The HC adjourned the plea sine die (indefinitely) and asked the petitioner to either approach the SC in the pending proceedings if she wished to seek an opinion or 'appropriate view' of the SC on the 'larger issues,' or wait till the adjudication of the proceedings before the SC. The HC allowed the petitioner to apply again after the SC decision.
