Centre opposes plea before Delhi HC assailing provisions of surrogacy law

The Centre has opposed a petition filed before the Delhi High Court assailing certain provisions of the surrogacy law saying the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act 2021 and the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 were enacted following due procedure with an intention to restrict the commercialisation of embryos and newborn childrenIn an affidavit the Centre has said the law was passed by Parliament after receiving comments from all the stakeholders and the provisions challenged by the petitioners regulate the procedure of assisted reproductive technology ART and surrogacy which if diluted would defeat the whole purpose of the lawBoth Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021 and Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act 2021 have been enacted after following due prescribed procedure as per law Hence there are no comments The provisions challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition are to regulate the procedure of the ART and surrogacyIf these clauses are diluted the whole purpose of both the Acts shall be defeated read the counteraffidavit filed by the Ministry of Health and Family WelfareBoth the Acts are enacted so that the procedures followed in the ART and surrogacy can be regulated in an appropriate manner as per rules and regulations with an intention to restrict salepurchasecommercialisation etc of embryosgametesnew born child etc it addedAlso read Chandra Grahan 2022 When is Lunar Eclipse Heres all you need to knowThe petitioners Karan Balraj Mehta an unmarried man and Dr Pankhuri Chandra a married woman and a mother of one have challenged several provisions of the surrogacy law including the exclusion of a single man and a married woman having a child from the benefit of surrogacy as a reproductive choice and the requirement of the exercise being an altruistic surrogacy onlyThe petitioners have contended that they stand ousted from availing the benefit of surrogacy as a reproductive choice which is discriminatory and in violation of articles 14 and 21 of the ConstitutionThe Centre in its reply said the Acts are not ultra vires articles 14 and 21 and there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the petitionersThe petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of any merits and is required to be dismissed in the interest of justice the counteraffidavit filed by the Centre readThe petition filed through lawyer Aditya Samaddar has challenged the constitutionality of sections 2e 142 21 273 and 311 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act 2021 and sections 2h 2s 2r 2zd 2zg 4iia 4iib 4iii 4IIC 8 and 381a of the Surrogacy Regulation Act 2021The provisions pertain to the regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy proceduresIn their plea the petitioners have stated that commercial surrogacy is the only option available to them but the ban on commercial surrogacy robs them of the optionThe personal decision of a single person about the birth of a baby through surrogacy that is the right of reproductive autonomy is a facet of the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution Thus the right to privacy of every citizen or person to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters fundamentally affecting a decision to bear or beget a child through surrogacy cannot be taken away the petition saysIt argues that the eligibility criteria to maximise the chances of finding the best surrogate mother would be any healthy woman above the age of majority and the needless conditions of being genetically related of a particular age married and already having at least one child only constrict the universe of available candidates who may otherwise become healthy surrogate mothersThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever