In a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court on October 4, 2024, the court allowed the petition filed by Gurvinder Singh and Harbir Kaur, the parents of the deceased Preet Inder Singh, for the release of their son’s cryopreserved semen from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The court granted the petition despite the absence of explicit written consent from the deceased, navigating a complex intersection of reproductive rights, personal autonomy, and legal frameworks.
Background of the Case
The petitioners, Gurvinder Singh and Harbir Kaur, sought to claim their deceased son Preet Inder Singh’s semen sample, which had been stored at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in 2020 before his chemotherapy for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Preet Inder Singh passed away at the age of 30 on September 1, 2020, shortly after the cryopreservation of his semen on June 27, 2020. The petitioners approached the hospital for the release of the semen sample with the intention of using it to have a grandchild through surrogacy, but the hospital refused to release the sample without appropriate legal orders.
The petitioners, supported by their daughters, were determined to fulfill their son’s legacy and argued that they had the legal and moral right to the semen sample as Preet’s legal heirs. However, the hospital maintained that no clear guidelines existed for such situations and, without a court order, it could not release the sample.
Important Legal Issues Involved
1. Consent for Posthumous Reproduction: A central issue in the case was whether the deceased’s semen could be released without his explicit consent for posthumous reproduction. The petitioners argued that although their son had not provided written consent, his intention to preserve his semen for future procreation was clear.
2. Application of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act and Surrogacy (Regulation) Act (SRA): The respondents, including the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, argued that the petitioners did not qualify as “intending parents” under the ART Act, 2021, or the SRA, 2021, and were therefore not eligible for surrogacy rights. Furthermore, they contended that the ART Act, which governs the release and use of genetic material, did not permit the release of a deceased person’s genetic material to their parents.
3. Reproductive Rights under Article 21: The petitioners relied on their fundamental right to reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They argued that their son’s preserved semen should be treated as an extension of his reproductive autonomy and that they, as legal heirs, had the right to use it to continue their family legacy.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Prathiba M. Singh delivered a detailed judgment, acknowledging the profound legal, ethical, and moral complexities of the case. She referred to both domestic and international case law, as well as the evolving legal landscape surrounding posthumous reproduction.
The court observed, “The death of an individual does not negate their right to reproductive autonomy. The petitioners, as legal heirs, seek to fulfill the last remaining wish of their deceased son – to continue his lineage. This right, which flows from Article 21, must be preserved in the absence of explicit prohibition.”
While the court recognized that the ART Act and the SRA did not specifically address such cases, Justice Singh highlighted the gaps in the legislation. She noted that the law must evolve with the changing societal needs and that in the absence of clear statutory prohibition, reproductive rights under Article 21 should take precedence.
The court further remarked, “To deny the release of the semen sample would amount to a violation of the fundamental right to reproductive choice, as enshrined under Article 21. This right should not be stultified due to the lack of explicit consent, especially when the deceased’s intention to preserve his reproductive material was clear.”
Counsel and Parties Involved
– Petitioners: Gurvinder Singh and Harbir Kaur (parents of the deceased)
– Respondent: Government of NCT of Delhi, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Suruchi Aggarwal, with Advocate Gurmeet Singh
– Respondent’s Counsel: Central Government Standing Counsel Kirtiman Singh, with Vidhi Jain and Taha Yasin
