Skip to main content

surrogacy in India

 


Surrogacy in India

By Shreya Verma


Surrogacy, as per Collins English Dictionary means, ‘‘an arrangement by which a woman gives birth to a baby on behalf of someone who is physically unable to have babies themselves, and then gives the baby to that person’’.

India legalised commercial surrogacy in 2002. ‘Commercial surrogacy’ as per Section 2(g) of  The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 means, “commercialisation of surrogacy services or procedures or its component services or component procedures including selling or buying of human embryo or trading in the sale or purchase of human embryo or gametes or selling or buying or trading the services of surrogate motherhood by way of giving payment, reward, benefit, fees, remuneration or monetary incentive in cash or kind, to the surrogate mother or her dependents or her representative, except the medical expenses and such other prescribed expenses incurred on the surrogate mother and the insurance coverage for the surrogate mother”. Since, surrogacy in India is quite cheaper, it is 3 times cheaper than in UK and 5 times than in USA, so, many foreign couples opt India for surrogacy. A report says that, 50% of surrogate babies are "commissioned" by overseas, mainly western, couples. Owing to high demand, the surrogate industry in India was operating unchecked. Women in need of money, agree to rent their wombs in order to make enough money to look after their families. However, they undergo more risk than their body can bear. In some cases, a woman undergoes subsequent pregnancies without taking a proper gap. Considering this, Law Commission in its 220th Report on 'Need for Legislation to Regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics, as well as rights and obligations of parents to a surrogacy', has opined the concept of Surrogacy Agreement which will include- 

(a) consent of surrogate mother to bear the child; 

(b) agreement of her husband and other family members.; 

(c) medical procedures of artificial insemination; 

(d) reimbursement of all reasonable expenses for carrying the child to full term; 

(e) willingness to handover the child to commissioning parents. 

Law Commission also recommended-

-> a legislation which would recognize a surrogate child to be legitimate child of the commissioning parents without there being any need for adoption or even declaration of guardian. 

-> child should bear the name of commissioning parents only and that right to privacy of donor as well as surrogate mother should be protected. 

-> it also suggested that an Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill should be passed which would carry all the safeguards regarding surrogacy.

In Jan Balaz vs. Anand Municipality (2010) Guj. question regarding nationality of child born in India through surrogacy arose. It was asked, as to whether a surrogate mother is only a gestational carrier or a host of an embryo? It was further asked that where a surrogate is also an ova Donor then will she be the real mother or merely a gestational surrogate? Laws of several countries on the nationality of child born through surrogacy were discussed in this case and it was held that if surrogate mother is just an Egg Donor and the child is born out of the intended mother then that intended mother will be the natural mother and consequently legal mother of that child. However, in the cases where the surrogate is Egg Donor as well as bears the child in her womb and gives birth then natural mother will be the surrogate and child will get Indian nationality if the surrogate mother is an Indian.


On 25th December, 2021, The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 received the assent of the President. Some of the noteworthy provisions under the Act are: 

  • Parentage of surrogate child: Surrogate Child is deemed to be a biological child of the intending couple or intending woman. The child would be entitled to all the rights and privileges available to a natural child under any law for time being in force. (Section 8)

  • Registration of Surrogacy Clinics: Chapter 4 of the Act talks about the registration of surrogacy clinics which includes making an application for registration to the appropriate authority and issuance of certificate of registration, paying of requisite fees, registration under National assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy Registry, etc. 

  • It prohibits commercial surrogacy and exploitation of mothers and children born through surrogacy. 

  • Promotion of altruistic surrogacy and punishing those who does not follow altruistic surrogacy. 

  • Taking written informed consent of surrogate mother in which, she is explained about the side effects and after effects of the procedure. 

  • It also prohibits the intending couple or woman to abandon the child who is born out of surrogacy procedure for any reason like sex of the child, any genetic defect, birth defect or any other medical condition.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree