SMT.INDIRAMMA A.R. [PETITIONERS] Vs. UNION OF INDIA [RESPONDENTS]
WRIT PETITION NO. 30530 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR JUDGE)
The petitioners, a couple who have tragically lost both their sons—one to a road traffic accident and the other to hypoxia—seek approval for surrogacy under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“the Act”). They request the issuance of certificates for medical indication, eligibility, and essentiality to pursue surrogacy treatment. However, as intending parents, they exceed the age limit prescribed under Section 4(iii)(C)(I) of the Act. To proceed, they also seek permission to use donor eggs for the treatment.
The case draws on a precedent set by the Karnataka High Court in H Siddaraju and Another v. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine Kar 16). In that case, the court directed the State Surrogacy Board or other appropriate authorities to consider the petitioners’ request for eligibility certificates, subject to satisfying the “triple test” outlined in paragraph 25 of the judgment. This triple test involves meeting the specific conditions under the Act for medical necessity, fulfilling age and medical requirements, and adhering to ethical surrogacy principles.
Acknowledging the similarities between the two cases, the court in this instance decided to resolve the petition by directing the couple to approach the State Surrogacy Board or appropriate authority. The petitioners are required to file their application within four weeks from receiving the certified copy of the court order. Once the application is submitted, the Board or authority must evaluate it and issue the eligibility certificate within another four weeks, provided the petitioners meet the necessary requirements.
The court emphasized that while considering the petitioners’ case, the Board or authority should adhere to the observations made in WP No. 5861/2023 (decided on April 21, 2023). This directive ensures consistency with prior judicial interpretations and fair application of the law. By following the procedural guidance outlined in earlier judgments, the court sought to balance adherence to the Act’s regulatory framework with sensitivity to the unique circumstances faced by the petitioners.
This judgment highlights the judicial system’s role in addressing the challenges posed by rigid statutory requirements in exceptional cases. While the Act imposes age limits and other restrictions to regulate surrogacy, the court recognized the petitioners’ specific circumstances and sought to provide a legal pathway for their request. The outcome aligns with broader principles of justice and equity, ensuring that regulatory frameworks are applied with compassion where appropriate.
In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with clear directions for the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies from the State Surrogacy Board. The judgment underscores the necessity of balancing regulatory compliance with individualized considerations in surrogacy cases, reflecting a compassionate approach to addressing unique human experiences within the boundaries of the law.