Open Access Research Article
SURROGACY: A JUDICIAL TREND ANALYSIS IN INDIAN CONTEXT
Published Paper
Article Details
SURROGACY: A JUDICIAL TREND
ANALYSIS IN INDIAN CONTEXT
AUTHORED BY-
ABHYUDAYA SINGH,
3rd Year
BBA LLB, Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur
ABSTRACT
Within the
historically and ethically charged landscape of surrogacy in India, this
research explores the evolution from ancient acceptance to contemporary legal
debates. Examining the boom and bust of commercial surrogacy and the subsequent
shift to altruistic arrangements under the 2021 Act, we delve into key court
cases that shaped legal clarity and evolving regulations. Through this lens, we
highlight the ongoing challenges of balancing the desire to build families with
the need for stringent safeguards against exploitation. Ultimately, our
analysis underscores the importance of continued legal refinement and social
sensitivity to ensure responsible and ethical surrogacy practices for all
stakeholders involved.
INTRODUCTION
The Latin term “surrogacy” derived from “surrogare” reflects
the act of substituting oneself for another. This practice finds its roots in
situations where pregnancy presented medical risks or physical limitations for
the intended parents. Ancient Babylonian society exemplifies this, where barren
women consented to their husbands fathering children with another woman,
highlighting the historical presence of this practice.
Modern commercial surrogacy, however, is a complex
tapestry woven from advancements in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART),
evolving social norms, and intricate legal frameworks. ART techniques like
artificial insemination have minimized the need for direct physical contact,
mitigating some ethical concerns. India's rapid ascent as a global surrogacy
hub in the last two decades saw a surge in fertility clinics offering ART
services, leading to a concomitant rise in ethical and legal dilemmas.
Two distinct types of surrogacy exist: traditional
and gestational. Traditional surrogacy involves insemination of the surrogate
with the intended father's sperm, creating a biological link between mother and
child. This raises intricate legal questions surrounding parentage and child
rights. Gestational surrogacy, facilitated by ART, utilizes an embryo created
from the intended couple's gametes and implants it in the surrogate's womb,
severing the genetic bond between mother and child. This distinction forms the
cornerstone of legal regulations and their evolution.
The booming surrogacy industry in India witnessed
instances of unethical practices like commercialization, selective breeding,
and even child abandonment. To address these concerns, the Indian government
implemented various regulations, including the Indian Council of Medical
Research guidelines and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2016. These regulations
aim to strike a delicate balance between enabling responsible surrogacy and
curbing exploitative practices.
Despite its legalization in 2002, concerns
surrounding the potential for exploitation in commercial surrogacy led to a
temporary ban in 2015. This was replaced by the 2016 Act, which permits only
altruistic surrogacy with close relatives of the intended parents. This
legislative shift underscores the ongoing legal debate surrounding the ethical,
social, and legal complexities of commercial surrogacy, a factor contributing
to its ban in several countries.
This analysis delves into the case studies and
regulatory timeline of surrogacy in India, offering valuable insights into the
intricate legal considerations surrounding this practice. It serves as a
reminder that the legal landscape of surrogacy continues to evolve alongside
advancements in ART and shifting societal attitudes. As we navigate this
complex web of life creation, further legal refinements may be crucial to
safeguard the rights of all stakeholders involved, including the surrogate, the
intended parents, and the child, while acknowledging the potential for social
and ethical implications. Only through a nuanced and sensitive approach can we
ensure that surrogacy serves as a tool for creating families, not a platform
for exploitation or commodification.
ANALYSIS OF CASES ON
SURROGACY IN INDIA
BABY MANJI YAMADA VS. UNION
OF INDIA 2008[1]
ISSUE:
1. Does the
petitioner have a locus standi in the Supreme Court of India
2. The issue
in this present case that do the biological parents have the right over the
custody of the child born through surrogacy.
RULE:
1. Article 32
of the Constitution of India[2] states about the
writ jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The writ petition was
filled by the biological grandmother of the child, before the Supreme Court of
India, the writ petition was filed before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court by an
NGO and it was entertained by the Hon’ble high court as a “Public Interest
litigation”.
FACTS:
A
baby girl M born out of surrogacy was born on 25-7-2008, before the birth of
the child an agreement was entered between the Indian Mother and a Japanese
couple for the purpose of surrogacy, before the birth of the child the Japanese
couple got into some matrimonial discords thereafter and after the birth of the child all the necessary
medical care and breast feeding was done by a woman, further a writ of habeas
corpus styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” was filled in Hon’ble High
Court by a NGO (SATYA) regarding the custody of the baby girl following which
the Hon’ble high court passed orders regarding the same, the same was
challenged by the biological grandmother of the child at the hon’ble supreme
court of India. The petitioner in this court argued that it cannot come under
the ambit of public interest as there is no ambit of “public interest” in this
case and the petition which was filled before the hon’ble court was not in good
faith.
JUDGEMENT:
The
hon’ble supreme court of India disposed of the petition stating that commission
for protection of child rights and children’s court have been established in
order to look into the matters of child rights and speedy justice, further the
court stated that extending of visa and issuance of passport are upon the
discretion of the central government. The court in this judgement also called
upon the central government to come up with stringent laws regarding surrogacy
in India, the court in its judgement also stated about various forms of
surrogacy and its impact on the society.
The
court in this case observed that there is a requirement of stringent laws
regarding surrogacy, the court also stated about different forms of surrogacy:
-
1. Traditional
Surrogacy
This
method is also known as straight method of surrogacy in this method the
surrogate mother is pregnant with his or her own biological child but this
child was conceived with the intention of giving the custody of child to
someone else and raised by someone else. The child born out of this is either
conceived using frozen or fresh sperm through artificial insemination which is
performed at fertility clinics.
2. Gestational
Surrogacy
This
method is also known as host method in this method the surrogate mother becomes
pregnant with the transfer of embryo of which she is not the biological mother
and she carries the fetus throughout pregnancy. In this method of surrogacy,
the surrogate mother acts as a gestational carrier.
3. Altruistic
Surrogacy
In
this type of surrogacy, the surrogate mother receives no financial reward for
her pregnancy or for carrying the child in her womb although all the medical
expenses related to pregnancy and other maternity expenses are paid by the
intended couple itself.
4. Commercial
Surrogacy
In
this type of surrogacy, the surrogate mother which is the gestational carrier
is paid to carry child in its womb until the maturity of the featus, this
process of surrogacy is usually used by couples who are well but are infertile or
are facing some problems related to pregnancy in order to complete their dream
of having children, this type of surrogacy is legally allowed in various
countries which have high medical care facilities in their country. This type
of surrogacy is also known through various offensive terms such as “baby
farms”, “womb on rent” etc.
The
court in this judgement also observed that the concept of surrogacy is a giving
rise to several social problems in the society therefore it is very important
and urgent for the central government to come up with proper laws regarding
surrogacy in order to give it a legal support.
ANALYSIS:
The
Supreme Court of India in this case has cleared the concept of surrogacy. This
was the very first case in history of Indian Judiciary to address the case of
surrogacy. it has provided a clear explanation on the meaning, scope, origin
and types of surrogacies. This led to a very vast exposure to the platform of
surrogacy which gave different interpretation for the same.
The
present case threw a light on need for a proper legislation with respect to
surrogacy. The court faced a huge challenge while deciding this case as there
were no precedents available for surrogacy nor any provisions were there
regarding the same. The nature of the judgement of present case is very short
and hurried. Due to absence of any law and precedent the court hurriedly passed
the judgement and hence failed to address many issues. The issues regarding
foreign parents, welfare of surrogate child and mother, legal recognition of children,
rights and liabilities of both the parties in surrogacy, results of commercial
surrogacy etc were remained unnoticed in this case.
The
court did not set this case as an important precedent rather just gave a
concept clarity with respect to methods of surrogacy. It also failed to answer
the question of the “locus standi” of the Respondent No. 3 to file the writ
petition and any bona fides being involved or not. The court missed this
opportunity to discuss surrogacy contract legality in India in detail just a
mere assumption was made by the bench that contract of surrogacy is legal in
terms which later resulted in numerous cases of commercial surrogacy. No such
guidelines, requirements and disqualifications were led down for entering into
the surrogacy contact.
The
bench enlightened the success in the field of surrogacy and said, “This medical
procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to
excellent medical infrastructure, high international demand and ready
availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions”. But the
bench ignored the words ‘poor surrogates’ and ‘reaching industry propositions’
and instead of throwing its concern upon the working of unregulated and illegal
surrogacy industries in the country the court used the provisions of “Commission
for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005” to provide relief to the parties.
As a
result, this case led to a new concept of “womb for rent” which means
commercial surrogacy as a new method of earning among poor. Even though this
method had economic benefit to the surrogate mother and to country as well but
the disadvantage side of commercial surrogacy was heavier and resulted in human
trafficking and debates on ethical and legal aspects in the society.
JAN
BALAZ VS. ANAND MUNICIPALITY,2009[3]
ISSUE
1. Can
children born out of surrogate mothers be granted Indian citizenship.
RULE
2. “Section 3
of the Indian Citizenship Act” states that any born in India irrespective of
the “nationality” of their parents would be considered a citizen of India and
can be granted Indian citizenship.
FACTS
A
German national came into a contract with a surrogate mother who was an Indian
National in order to fulfil their dream of having children of having a child
through surrogacy, The petitioner, in this case, agreed to provide the sperm,
and with the help of an anonymous Indian woman who agreed to provide the egg
entered a surrogacy agreement with the surrogate mother and implanted the
embryo in the womb of the mother with the help of assisted reproductive
technology (IVF) after the children were born their biological father applied
for Indian citizenship in order to get the passports of both the children
however the passports where granted but the father got a notice to surrender
the passports of both the children as the children where born through surrogacy
and surrogate mother would not be considered the real mother of the children
and therefore citizenship could not be granted, however in this case the intending
mother or the surrogate mother was not the biological mother of the child,
however it was revealed that the women who provided the eggs was also an Indian
citizen.
CONCLUSION
The
court in this case was of the opinion that since “Section 3” of the “Citizenship
Act” uses the term “every person born” the children have a right to citizenship
of India and the court following the same ordered the return pf passports.
ISSUES:
Whether the petitioner, who had a child through altruistic surrogacy, is
entitled to maternity leave and medical benefits under the “Madras Port Trust
(Leave) Regulations, 1987”.
RULE:
The relevant rule is “Rule 3-A” of the “Madras Port
Trust (Leave) Regulations, 1987”, which provides that a female employee who
adopts a child below one year of age is entitled to maternity leave for a
period of 180 days from the date of adoption. The rule also states that such
leave shall not be debited against the leave account and that the employee
shall be paid full pay during such period of leave. The rule further states
that such leave may be combined with any other kind of leave.
FACTS:
The petitioner, K. Kalaiselvi,
was an “Assistant Superintendent” in the “Traffic Department” of the Chennai
Port Trust for 24 years. She was married and had one son (Shyam Sundar) aged 20 years. Her son died in a road
accident on January 31, 2009. She underwent a hysterectomy in 2008 due to
medical complications. In 2011, she and her husband decided to have a child
through surrogacy and entered into an agreement with a surrogate mother, who
agreed to carry their child for free. The female child was born on February 8,
2011.
Kalaiselvi applied for
maternity leave from her employer, but her application was denied. The employer
argued that she was not entitled to maternity leave because she had not given
birth to the child herself. They also contended
that surrogacy is not recognized or regulated by any law in India, and that
there is no legal relationship between the petitioner and the child. The
respondent also cites various judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts,
which have held that maternity leave is meant for women who undergo physical
and mental stress during pregnancy and childbirth.
She challenged the decision of
the employer in court. She argues that
she should be treated as a mother and be granted with maternity leave under “Rule
3-A”, since she had a child through surrogacy, which is a form of assisted
reproductive technology.
The Madras High Court ruled in
favor of Kalaiselvi. The court held that the purpose of maternity leave is to
allow the mother to bond with her child. The court found that she was the legal
mother of the child, regardless of the fact that she had not given birth to the
child herself. The court also noted that the employer had granted maternity
leave to adoptive mothers, and that there was no reason to distinguish between
adoptive mothers and commissioning mothers.
In reaching its decision, the
court relied on the following international instruments:
·
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, which
guarantees the right to equality of all human beings.
·
“The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women”, which prohibits discrimination against women on
the basis of their marital status or family status.
·
“The Convention on the Rights of the Child”, which
recognizes the right of every child to be cared for by his or her parents.
CONCLUSION:
“Maternity leave is not meant
for the only health of the mother it is primarily for the mother to
bond with the child”
The court decides in favour of the petitioner,
holding that she is entitled to maternity leave under “Rule 3-A”. The court
interprets “Rule 3-A” in a broad and liberal manner, taking into account the
purpose and spirit of the rule, which is to ensure proper bonding between the
child and the parents. The court also considers the international instruments
cited by the petitioner as a guide for interpreting domestic law, and observes
that they recognize the right of every child to have a family and the right of
every woman to have a child. Also, the denial
of maternity leave to a woman who has a child through surrogacy is
discriminatory and violates her fundamental right to equality. The court rejects the respondent’s arguments as
narrow and technical, and notes that surrogacy is not illegal or immoral in
India. The court also grants medical benefits to the petitioner, as per “Rule
3-B of the Madras Port Trust (Leave) Regulations, 1987”. The court also held that the purpose of maternity leave is to
allow the mother to bond with her child, and this purpose is not defeated by
the fact that the child is born through surrogacy and should be entitled to the same benefits
as women who give birth to their own children as it is recognized that
surrogacy is a legitimate way for women to have children.
The decision of the Madras
High Court in this has been followed by other courts in India. It has helped to
establish the right of commissioning mothers to avail of maternity leave from
their employers and it has helped to pave the way for greater acceptance of
surrogacy in the country and also been protected from exploitation.
ISSUE:
1. Whether a
biological mother who has obtained a child through surrogacy is entitled to
maternity leave under the “Maternity Benefits Act, 1961”, she herself being the
genetic or biological mother?
2. Whether, in
the face of a particular legislative field having been occupied by an extant
domestic enactment, the International Law conventions and treaty obligations
can be enforced through Municipal Courts?
RULE: The “Maternity
Benefits Act, 1961” provides for a minimum of “12 weeks” of paid maternity
leave to a woman employed for at least “80 days”
in the “12 months” preceding the expected date of delivery in an
establishment for which the Act applies. The Act does not specifically mention
or define the term “maternity”.
FACTS: The petitioner, P.
Geetha, is a government employee of “Kerala
Livestock Development Board” who conceived a child through surrogacy.
She applied for maternity leave, but her application was rejected by the Board
(respondent) on the ground that she did not undergo the gestational period.
ANALYSIS: The
court held that the term "maternity" in the “Maternity Benefits Act,
1961” should be interpreted to mean the period of pregnancy and childbirth. The
court reasoned that the Act is intended to protect the health and safety of
women during and after childbirth, and this protection would not be available along with the maternity benefits to a woman
who does not undergo the gestational period.
The
court also noted that the “Maternity Benefits Act” is a welfare legislation and
should be interpreted in a way that benefits women. However, the court found
that there is no evidence to suggest that denying maternity leave to biological
mothers of surrogate children would harm their health or well-being.
CONCLUSION: The
court held that the petitioner was not entitled to maternity leave under the “Maternity
Benefits Act, 1961”.
The
court reasoned that the Act is meant to protect the health and safety of women
who go through the physical and emotional challenges of pregnancy and
childbirth. Since the biological mother of a surrogate child does not undergo
these challenges, she is not entitled to the same benefits.
The
court's decision in this case has been criticized by some who argue that it
discriminates against women who choose to have children through surrogacy. They
argue that the biological mother of a surrogate child should be entitled to the
same maternity benefits as any other woman who gives birth. However, the
court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Maternity Benefits Act,
1961, and it is unlikely to be changed in the near future. The issue of whether
biological mothers of surrogate children are entitled to maternity leave is a
complex one that is likely to continue to be debated in the courts.
Here are some additional thoughts on the
case:
·
The court's decision raises the question of
whether a woman who has a child through surrogacy is a “mother” in the eyes of
the law. The court did not address this question directly, but its decision
seems to suggest that a woman who does not undergo the gestational period is
not a “mother” for the purposes of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.
·
The court's decision may have a chilling
effect on the use of surrogacy in India. If women who have children through
surrogacy are not entitled to maternity leave, they may be less likely to
choose this option.
·
The court's decision is likely to be challenged
in the future. It is possible that a higher court will overturn the decision
and find that women who have children through surrogacy are entitled to
maternity leave.
JUDICIAL TREND ANALYSIS
This
analysis shows an evolution of surrogacy laws and precedents over the decade,
the current situation of surrogacy in Indian and whether judiciary has acted in
a fruitful manner or not. The trend analysis of all cases is drawn upon with a
view to create a chain of events from 2002 to 2021. The development of
surrogacy laws in India was only possible due to the following cases and
reports-
In India the very first case dealing with the question of surrogacy. The
court in this case has given the meaning, object, scope and types of surrogacies.
But it failed to address various issues which were considered very important at
that time. Due to no provisions and precedent with respect to surrogacy the
bench faced challenge in giving judgement and hence it resulted in a hurried
and short judgement. It highlighted a need to bring surrogacy laws into the
country. The issues of surrogacy contract, illegal surrogacy industries,
foreign parents, protection of surrogate mother and children were remained
unnoticed and ignorance of the bench to certain points which gave rise to
legality of commercial surrogacy led to human trafficking in the country.
The court in this case observed that there is a question of the rights
of two innocent babies and the court did not have any kind statutory law or any
precedent regarding the same. This case also seemed to be in support of
commercial surrogacy but this case led to a true concern for bringing surrogacy
laws into the country. It contributed to the development of guidelines and
regulations governing surrogacy in In. The two-judge bench
looked at the welfare of children in spite of lack of provisions of surrogacy.
They held that no surrogate child should suffer because of absence of any
surrogate provision and hence a framework is needed to be bought for surrogacy.
This case emphasized importance of protection of surrogate mother and child and
establishing proper surrogacy clinics. The insufficiency of surrogacy contract
in this case provided a need for set of guidelines for the same, the issue of
citizenship and identity matter became a huge concern of the judiciary.
This case dealt with
whether a surrogate mother is entitled for maternity leave or not. The bench in
this case took in consideration the motherhood concept and also emerged the
need of legal clarity on maternity leave and benefits for women opting for
surrogacy. As the changing time, more and more women are getting employed in
different sectors around the world and a clear cut straight forward provision
for the surrogate mother’s safety, health concerns, employment benefits, rights
and duties were much needed. This judgement had enlightened the exact same need
and has emphasized the importance of such laws.
The main question in this case was whether surrogate and biological
mother should be treated equally. As per the case “K. Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port Trust” the
judges have already stated the need for maternity laws with respect to
surrogate employed mothers. Similar decision has been given in the present
case. Reference of article 21 has been taken in support of same. Two
consecutive cases of this issue have supported the idea of Surrogacy Regulation
Bill.
This
analysis highlights the various case scenarios in India and the timeline of
various regulations brought by the government of India to regulate
surrogacy services. From no surrogacy laws to boon in market due to
commercial surrogacy and at last ban on commercial surrogacy. It’s been a
hectic journey for the judiciary and legislative.
Surrogacy
first came into effect in the year 1980 and in India it got legalized in the
year 2002. But as the year progressed it was noticed with some flaws and
misuses of the legalization of commercial surrogacy. With the passing years and
after observing the flaws Indian Council of Medical Research came up with
regulations to prevent exploitation of surrogacy in 2005. Initially there were
no precedents and provision of surrogacy due to which the case of “Baby Manji
Yamada v. Union of India”[10]
seemed to be a failure. After which the urge to bring surrogacy laws ignited. So,
the “228th Law Commission Report” brought need for Legislation to
Regulate ART Clinics as well as Rights & Obligations of Parties to
Surrogacy year 2009.
It
was claimed that women who rent their wombs do so because of poverty, which
makes it difficult for them to afford basic requirements and drives them to
engage in surrogacy. This recommendation was made in favour of legalising
ethical surrogacy while banning commercial surrogacy. Then came the case of Jan
Balaz v. Anand Municipality[11]
which urgently highlighted the need to bring the surrogacy laws. The case of “K.
Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port Trust”[12]
and “P.Geetha v. The Kerela Livestock Development”[13]
guided the legislation to frame rules of surrogacy keeping in mind the safety
of surrogate mother and children, and treatment of surrogate mother at
workplace. There was a clear violation of Art. 14[14],
Art. 19[15]
and Art. 21[16]
of Constitution of India. All this led to the birth of Surrogacy bill of 2016. The Bill authorised the creation of surrogacy boards
at both the national and state levels.
Additionally, only Indian heterosexual couples who have been lawfully
wed for five years are eligible for surrogacy, with the prerequisite of having
their proved fertility confirmed by a reputable medical professional. Also
prohibited from hiring a surrogate are foreigners, live-in partners, unmarried
couples, overseas Indians, single parents, live-in partners, and gay couples.
Then at last the act came in force on 2021 and only charitable
surrogacy is permitted under the Act, which forbids commercial surrogacy. An
instance of altruistic surrogacy is one in which the surrogate mother is not
paid in exchange for her services.
A
number of requirements for surrogacy arrangements are also outlined in the Act.
This evolution of surrogacy laws was only possible because of the active role
of judiciary. the ban on commercial surrogacy was a real need of the country at
that time, not only it helped in demoliting the illegal surrogacy mechanism but
also stopped the human trafficking in India. The interpretation given by judges
in “Jan Balaz and P.Geetha” case which threw a light on the sense of motherhood
and child sufferance shows that how judiciary not only urge to make surrogacy
laws but also kept in mind the importance of human feelings.
With
the current enactment of “Surrogacy Act, 2021”, more stricter laws have been
imposed and the Act allows only altruistic
surrogacy, which means that the surrogate mother cannot receive any
compensation apart from the medical expenses incurred during pregnancy
including insurance coverage. Only women acting in good faith can be accepted
as a surrogate mother, along with it many more restrictions are also implied on
surrogacy.
With much stricter laws now human trafficking is less likely
to occur. No women will be forced to act as a surrogate mother without her will
just for the sake of money. Illegal and unregulated surrogacy clinics are also
demolished with the enactment of this act. The involvement of foreign parents,
risk of leaving behind the surrogate mother in between etc are covered well
within the act.
Now currently the surrogacy has become much safer option for
child birth for those parents who are not able to give birth naturally. Many
celebrities are now a days relying on this mechanism which shows how well
judiciary has functioned over the decade to make surrogacy a trusted and safe
option in the society. Reliability has increased in this field. But still there are many loopholes present
which are yet to be covered and looked after by the judiciary. the ethical and
moral debates in the society is still as active as it was in past.
Only married couples are allowed to go for surrogacy and nor
any member of LGBTQ community neither the couples who are in live in relation
are allowed for the same. This creates a classification in the society and is
violative of article 14,19 and 21. The same class of people are allowed to
adopt child in India but are not allowed for surrogacy. Also the provision that
close relative are not allowed to become surrogate mother is not clear itself,
the provision does not exactly defines who all comes under the category of
close relative. Besides these there are still many more loopholes in surrogacy
law and practices in our country.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the answer to the issue that whether judiciary
has acted in a fruitful manner with respect to surrogacy is to be answered in a
positive way. Looking at all the analysis of different landmark judgements and
reports, we can say that yes judiciary has acted actively and positively in
bringing surrogacy laws. The birth of surrogacy regulation act was only
possible because of different interpretations, recommendations, criticisms and
ideas of different judges. This act has not only banned commercial surrogacy
but has also made the laws more stricter and surrogacy safer. Yes, there are
certain areas which still needs focus of judiciary and we believe that in
coming future they all will be dealt accordingly. The evolution of surrogacy
and current situation is no doubt a clear example of how an active judiciary
works.
[1] Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of
India, (2008) 13 SCC 518
[2] India Const. art. 32.
[3] Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality,
2009 SCC OnLine Guj 10446
[4] “K. Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port
Trust, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 811”
[5] P. Geetha v. Kerala Livestock
Development Board Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 71
[6] “Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of
India, (2008) 13 SCC 518”
[7] “Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality,
2009 SCC OnLine Guj 10446”
[8] “K. Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port
Trust, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 811”
[9] “P. Geetha v. Kerala Livestock
Development Board Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 71”
[10] “Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of
India, (2008) 13 SCC 518”
[11] “Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality,
2009 SCC OnLine Guj 10446”
[12] “K. Kalaiselvi v. Chennai Port
Trust, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 811”
[13] “P. Geetha v. Kerala Livestock
Development Board Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 71”
[14] “India Const. art. 14.”
[15] “India Const. art. 19.”
[16] “India Const. art. 21.”
Article Information
SURROGACY: A JUDICIAL TREND ANALYSIS IN INDIAN CONTEXT
Authors: ABHYUDAYA SINGH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/01/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.