In a recent development, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna, addressed a plea by an Indian-origin couple residing in Canada challenging the amendment to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act. The March 14 notification by the Centre aimed to prohibit donor surrogacy, citing concerns about the exploitation of surrogates.
During the proceedings, the bench expressed a strong stance against turning India into an industry for “renting a womb.” The judges emphasized that the legislation governing surrogacy procedures intends to safeguard the rights of surrogates and prevent their exploitation. They referenced the statement of objects and reasons of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, highlighting its benevolent nature in curbing the surrogacy industry’s potential exploitation.
The couple, claiming to be Indian nationals residing in Canada, contended that they sought surrogacy due to infertility caused by a medical condition.
Their plea, which cited a certificate of medical indication for surrogacy with a donor oocyte granted in December 2022, was based on the intention to undergo gestational surrogacy with embryos created from donor oocytes and the husband’s sperm.
However, the court responded by emphasizing that residing outside India does not exempt individuals from adhering to the country’s surrogacy regulations. They highlighted the economic factors driving surrogacy tourism to India and reiterated the legislative intent to curb such practices.
The judges, while acknowledging the couple’s desire to become parents, suggested alternatives such as adoption, urging the need to encourage adoption practices. The court expressed concern over the scarcity of adoptive parents, emphasizing the transformative impact adoption could have on the lives of children in need.
Despite the couple’s withdrawal of the petition, the high court left the rights and contentions of all parties open for future consideration. The judges underscored that the legislation, restricting certain surrogacy practices, aligns with a well-thought-out intent and cannot be deemed arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
