The Delhi High Court has allowed a Canada-based couple to participate virtually in surrogacy-related proceedings before the district medical board, holding that physical presence is not essential at this stage of scrutiny.
Justice Sachin Datta, in an order passed on November 10, observed that the statutory role of the district medical board under Section 4(iii)(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, is largely centred on examining the couple’s medical records for issuing a Certificate of Medical Indication. For this purpose, the court said, virtual interaction is sufficient.
“The remit of the district medical board… is primarily to examine the relevant medical record to ascertain as to whether the petitioners are eligible for issuance of a ‘Certificate of Medical Indication’,” Justice Datta noted, adding that the nature of the exercise is “largely predicated on a perusal of the relevant medical record.”
If any clarification is required, the judge said, a virtual hearing would meet the need.
The bench also questioned why district-level boards should not adapt to virtual formats when the Surrogacy Regulations, 2023, already mandate virtual hearings for State Boards under Sections 5(3) and 5(4). The court therefore set aside the board’s March order insisting on physical appearance and permitted the couple to join the proceedings online. Their authorised representative will remain physically present with all medical documents.
The couple, married in 2015 and childless, has been living and working in Canada since 2022. They approached the Delhi South district medical board seeking a Certificate of Medical Indication for Gestational Surrogacy and requested permission to attend hearings virtually.
They told the court that appearing in person would involve major logistical hurdles, including difficulty obtaining immediate leave from employers and prohibitive international travel expenses at short notice.
However, the district board had rejected the request and directed them to attend physically. That order was challenged before the high court.
Opposing the petition, counsel for the board argued that physical interaction was necessary to eliminate the possibility of exploitation and ensure the integrity of the process.
The high court disagreed, stating that at this preliminary stage, insisting on physical appearance lacked justification.
