Gauhati High Court Upholds Surrogacy Age Limit, Dismisses Couple's Plea
The Gauhati High Court recently delivered a significant ruling on surrogacy regulations in India. The court firmly rejected a married couple's plea challenging the age eligibility criteria under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury made this decision while hearing the couple's case.
Court's Rationale: Public Interest Over Individual Hardship
The court emphasized that individual hardship, no matter how genuine, cannot serve as grounds to relax or strike down statutory policies framed in the public interest. The bench stated clearly that the measures outlined in the Act pursue legitimate state interests. These measures bear a rational connection with the legislation's objectives and cannot be considered excessive or oppressive.
The court held: "Individual hardship, however genuine, cannot be a ground to strike down or relax a statutory policy framed in the public interest."
Specific Provisions Under Scrutiny
The couple had specifically challenged Section 4 (iii)(b)(I) of the Surrogacy Act. This section specifies that only an ever married woman between 25 and 35 years of age, who already has a child of her own, can act as a surrogate mother or donate eggs for surrogacy purposes. The court found this provision reasonable and justified.
The judges explained that age limits in surrogacy contexts are clearly linked to concerns about parental capacity, health considerations, longevity, and the long-term welfare of children born through such arrangements. Therefore, the provision cannot be characterized as arbitrary or irrational.
Background of the Case
The married couple at the center of this case had been facing infertility issues for some time. They underwent extensive medical efforts, including IVF technology, but these attempts failed. Subsequently, they decided to pursue surrogacy as an alternative path to parenthood.
However, during their surrogacy process, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into effect. This new legislation mandated specific permissions and certifications for surrogacy procedures. The couple initiated the surrogacy procedure again under the new regulations, but this attempt also failed.
Complications arose when the central government issued a notification preventing the use of donor sperm for surrogacy by married women, with exceptions only for widows or divorcees. When the couple sought fresh permission to initiate surrogacy again, authorities declined their request based on statutory ineligibility under the new law.
Court's Findings on Legislative Intent
The court recognized the Surrogacy Act, 2021 as a comprehensive legislative measure enacted after extensive deliberation. The legislation aims to address multiple concerns:
- Ethical considerations surrounding surrogacy
- Prevention of exploitation of surrogate mothers
- Ensuring transparency in surrogacy arrangements
- Safeguarding the interests of children born through surrogacy
The restriction on using donor gametes by married couples reflects a deliberate policy choice. This choice aims to ensure genetic linkage between children and intending parents. The Parliament was entitled to prioritize this consideration when framing the legislation.
Previous Attempts Do Not Grant Immunity
The court made an important observation regarding the couple's previous surrogacy attempts. The mere fact that the petitioners had attempted surrogacy earlier does not immunize them from compliance with the law as it stands today. Their previous surrogacy had failed and could not be considered a continuing process.
The bench emphasized that constitutional adjudication cannot be guided by sympathy alone. The challenged provisions represent a considered legislative policy that does not infringe upon Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty respectively.
Broader Implications of the Ruling
This ruling reinforces the principle that well-considered legislation serving public interest takes precedence over individual circumstances, even difficult ones. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory frameworks designed to regulate complex medical and ethical practices like surrogacy.
The judgment sends a clear message to other couples facing similar situations. While acknowledging the genuine hardship of infertility, the legal system must uphold laws created through democratic processes to serve broader societal interests.
