NEW DELHI: 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 new-born children.
In 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 law.
“Both 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 ART and surrogacy. If these clauses are diluted, the whole purpose of both the Acts shall be defeated,” read the counter-affidavit filed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
“Both 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 sale/purchase/commercialisation etc. of embryos/gametes/newborn child etc.,” it added.
The 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 only.
The 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 Constitution.
The 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 petitioners.