Earlier, the Supreme Court issued an interim ruling that permitted high courts to resolve requests requesting surrogacy citing medical difficulties that were not contemplated under the statute. This decision was made even though the challenge to the surrogacy provisions is still pending. Within the context of women who were unable to generate eggs due to documented medical problems, the ruling that was issued in October made surrogacy options available.
As a result of the aforementioned ruling (which was issued in October) and subsequent orders, we have discovered that several additional applications are being submitted in the writ petitions that are currently pending. It has come to our attention that a propensity of this kind would not be in the best interest of the candidates. Instead, the interest of justice and access to justice would be served if the individuals who are similarly placed to the other applicants in whose cases this court has issued interim orders were given the ability to approach the jurisdictional high court to seek similar reliefs, as stated by a bench consisting of Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih on February 5.
A modification to the guidelines was made in March of the previous year, and as a result, couples were prohibited from conducting surrogacy using donor gametes. Therefore, both the egg and the sperm need to come from the intended partners. Only donor sperm was allowed to be used in the case of women who were not married.
When asked about the status of the writ petitions that were currently before it, the Supreme Court stated that it would not interfere with the high court’s ability to evaluate them. “If these applicants approach the jurisdictional high court, their writ petitions would be taken into consideration about the interim orders that have been issued by this court.”
The United States Supreme Court deliberated on an exemption to the regulations on October 18, citing medical conditions that rendered women incapable of generating oocytes as the basis for the exception. The assertions were validated by the district medical boards. In October, eight women were permitted to undergo surrogacy, and on February 6, the remaining four women were given permission.
The primary petition that challenges the regulations that are outlined in the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act was presented to the court on February 5, and the hearings began.
An additional solicitor general named Aishwarya Bhati concurred with the Supreme Court’s decision that the high courts may be requested to move forward with the case by the judgement dated October 18 if the applicants are in a similar position. The government of the Union referred to the temporary order and told the court that a team of experts was looking into the possibility of modifying the rules by the interim decision.
