Disposed

Smt Nainamol v. Union of India

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024WP/12732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners beyond the age limit prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act, 2021 sought eligibility certificates. The Court directed them to approach the State Surrogacy Board, which must consider their application subject to specific tests, while clarifying stored embryos cannot be used.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Surrogacy Board to consider the application within four weeks of receipt.

Smt Nainamol Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38719 WP No. 12732 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12732 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT NAINAMOL D/O PREMAN W/O SUDHEER KUMAR AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶8

SRI M S SUDHEER KUMAR S/O SUDHAKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶9

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

BOTH (1) AND (2) ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF MOTHAYIL HOUSE, EDAKULAM POOMANGALAM (CT), THRISSUR KERALA-680 688

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. ABHIRAJ B CHENGTI., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 011 (THROUGH ITS SECRETARY)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:38719 WP No. 12732 of 2024

¶16

THE KARNATAKA STATE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY ART AND SURROGACY ACT DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, AROGYA SOUDHA, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 023 (THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY)

¶17

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL BOARD CONSTITUTED UNDER SURROGACY (REGULATIONS) ACT 2021 K C GENERAL HOSPITAL MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560 003 (THROUGH ITS CHAIRPERSON)

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SADHANA S DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R2 & R3)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE SECTION 4(iii) c (I) OF SURROGACY (REGULATIONS) ACT, 2021 BEARING NO.NO.CG.DL-E.251220-21-232118 DTD 25.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DISQULIFYING THE P1 AND 2 FROM BECOMING INTENDED MOTHER AND INTENDED FATHER DUE TO THEIR AGE AND ETC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners who are beyond the age limit prescribed under Section 4(iii)(C)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulations) Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), are before this Court seeking a

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38719 WP No. 12732 of 2024

¶25

surrogacy certificate for medical indication, as well as eligibility and essentiality certificates, upon fulfillment of all other conditions laid down under the Act.

¶26

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the embryo which was fertilized prior to the commencement of the Act cannot be used for the purpose of surrogacy procedure. She further submits that the petitioners are beyond the age prescribed and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief sought for in this petition.

¶27

In similar circumstances, a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H Siddaraju and Another v. Union of India through its Secretary and Others (2023 SCC OnLine Kar 16) ruled that the case of the petitioners therein for issuance of an eligibility certificate may be considered by the State Surrogacy Board/Appropriate Authority/Prescribed Authority, subject to the petitioners satisfying the triple test as enumerated in paragraph 25 of the judgment.

¶28

Therefore, it is expedient to dispose of the petition in terms of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the aforementioned case. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the State Surrogacy Board/Appropriate Authority/ Prescribed Authority with the appropriate application seeking

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:38719 WP No. 12732 of 2024

¶33

redressal of their grievance. In the event, the petitioners would approach the Board/Appropriate Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, the State Surrogacy Board/Appropriate Authority/Prescribed Authority shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders for issuance of eligibility certificate within four weeks thereafter. While doing so, the Board/ Authority shall bear in mind the observations made by this Court in WP No.5861/2023 (DD 21.4.2023).

¶34

It is made clear that the petitioners shall not use the stored embryo or gamete for the purpose of surrogacy.

¶35

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶36

Smt Nainamol v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nainamol v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakepoint Builders Private Limited Vs Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Nanjundaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Century Drums and Barrels Industry Vs the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board

Mrs Kanika Masand Vs State of Karnataka

Ozone Urbana Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Krishnamurthy a Vs the Authorized Officer/Manager Citizen Co. Operative Bank Ltd.