The Supreme Court of India has scheduled a hearing on February 11 to scrutinize the age restrictions imposed on surrogate mothers and intended parents under the country’s surrogacy regulations. The bench, comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, will examine approximately 15 petitions that challenge certain aspects of the Surrogacy Regulation Act and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
During Tuesday’s session, the court instructed the Central government to submit its written responses, with Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati representing the Centre, confirming compliance with the court’s directive. The justices highlighted the necessity of issuing an interim order, indicating the urgency and significance of the issues raised.
The 2021 legislation stipulates that intended mothers must be aged between 23 to 50 years, and intended fathers must be between 26 to 55 years. Additionally, surrogate mothers must be married, aged between 25 to 35 years, have at least one biological child of their own, and are only permitted to be a surrogate once in their lifetime. These laws were enacted with the intent to regulate and safeguard the practice, particularly focusing on the welfare of surrogate mothers.
The bench previously stressed the importance of protecting surrogate mothers from potential exploitation, given that commercial surrogacy is banned in India. It suggested the creation of a database to monitor surrogacy arrangements and proposed that payments to surrogate mothers should be handled by a designated authority rather than directly by the intending couples.
“The department pays. You will have to deposit,” the bench stated, outlining a system intended to provide more secure and regulated compensation for surrogate mothers.
Aishwarya Bhati reassured the court that the government is open to considering suggestions for improving these regulations, emphasizing that the laws currently permit only altruistic surrogacy to prevent the commercialization of the practice.
Petitioners have argued that the laws are discriminatory and restrictive, providing inadequate compensation for surrogate mothers, covering only medical expenses and insurance. Dr. Arun Muthuvel, a Chennai-based infertility specialist and lead petitioner, has criticized the laws for being “discriminatory, exclusionary, and arbitrary,” and for promoting a state-sanctioned notion of the ideal family while restricting reproductive rights. Other petitions have voiced concerns about the exclusion of unmarried women from surrogacy and restrictions on oocyte donations under the ART Act.
