The Inside Story of India's Rent a Womb Industry
Introduction of Surrogacy:
Surrogacy is a procedure in which a woman agrees to bear a kid for someone else, such as two homosexual couple, a single individual, or a couple who are unable to conceive on their own. Following the birth of the child, the birth mother transfers custody and guardianship of the child to the intended father or mother (s). Birth mothers, surrogates, and other similar terms are used to describe women who carry children for other people. When a baby is delivered via a surrogacy agreement, the parents of the child are referred to as the commissioning or intended parents (s).
When a woman (the surrogate mother) decides to endure pregnancy and carry a child for another person or people, the person or persons who will become the child's parent(s) after birth are referred to as the surrogate parents. It is an abnormal method of conceiving a kid. As a result, it is a contract in which a woman agrees to carry a kid for the benefit of another spouse. It is a form of parenting, in which the commissioning parents sign a legal arrangement with a woman to give birth to a child for them and surrender all the parental rights to the intended parents. It is sometimes referred to be known as a Contract of Pregnancy.
Couples suffering from infertility or other problems depend on this alternative method of childbearing to carry their children. The payment of a monetary remuneration may or may not be involved in surrogacy agreements. Commercial surrogacy is defined as the practice of receiving payment for the arrangement. Surrogacy is only allowed in certain countries if there is no exchange of money, thus couples wanting a commercial surrogacy in a nation where it is prohibited must go to a country where it is permitted. Commercial surrogacy is arranged via the participation of third-party agencies and is governed by a legally binding contract. It is altruistic surrogacy, on the other side, if the surrogate mother receives no compensation other than reimbursement for her costs.
Surrogacy has been categorized into different kinds:
On the basis of Nature of Surrogacy Agreement
Although surrogacy has long raised ethical issues, the acceleration in these operations makes the problem much more essential. The economics of surrogate pregnancy advances quicker than our understanding to its implications with hundreds of new clinics set to start. A surrogate is a realistic option and becoming an increasingly popular choice for couples who cannot produce children.
A surrogate mother is a woman who has chosen to get pregnant and deliver a child particularly for a couple she has a contract with. A surrogate mother maybe the baby's genetic mother, in which case medical practitioners assist to fertilize her eggs; or she may be a gestational carrier and have an embryo placed in her uterus.
As for homosexual men, they may agree to utilize a traditional surrogacy in certain countries; one of them may use his sperm to fertilize the surrogate mother's egg via artificial insemination. Then, the woman carries the baby and gives birth. Also, a homosexual couple may choose an egg donor, fertilize the given egg, and then have the embryo placed into a gestational carrier to carry until pregnancy.
Origins of surrogacy dating back to antiquity:
Surrogacy is a topic of debate for many people in a variety of areas, including legal, social, ethical, and many more. It accommodates very diametrically opposed circumstances since some people support it while many others reject it. It also accommodates instances where a kid born via this method may be acceptable but not respected in many organizations today.
A surrogate is a person authorized to act in the place of another, according to Black Law's Dictionary.
The term Surrogate comes from the Latin word Surrogatus, which means Substitution or Replacement. Surrogacy is an old practice that is well-known in nearly all nations and civilizations across the world. Natural Surrogacy, Gestational Surrogacy, Commercial Surrogacy, and Altruistic Surrogacy are the four most common kinds of surrogacy in the United States.
Because of the Baby M case, the year 1986 is regarded as a watershed moment in the history of surrogacy. In the state of New Jersey, a couple engaged with a surrogate in order to become parents. Following the birth of a daughter, the surrogate declined the monetary offer and instead decided to keep the kid with her and her family. The Court found the surrogacy contract to be in violation of public policy and declared the use of money in the transaction to be illegal, criminal, and degrading to women. The surrogacy contract was cancelled. However, in the best interests of the child, the custody of the child was given to the intended parents, with only privilege visits privileges granted to the surrogate mother.
Surrogacy in return for monetary compensation has grown in popularity in tandem with scientific advancements in the fields of infertility and reproductive technologies. Commercial surrogacy, as opposed to traditional surrogacy, is a more contemporary form of conception, and the phrase wombs for hire was created when it became possible to grow a full-term kid in any womb.
Despite the fact that the Indian society has not always been welcoming of the concept of surrogacy, the practice has been practiced from ancient times.
In the Mahabharata, Gandhari, the wife of Dhritarashtra, became pregnant, but the pregnancy lasted almost two years, after which she gave birth to a semi-solid mass of flesh and bone. In the mass of cells, Bhagwan Vyasa discovered 101 cells that were normal. These cells were placed in a nutritional medium and allowed to grow in vitro for the duration of the study. The male children (Duryodhana and other Kauravas) outnumbered the female children (Duhsheela).
The female children outnumbered the male children (Duryodhana and other Kauravas). The tale of Drishtadyumna and Draupadi's birth also contains a reference to the birth of a baby outside of the mother's womb and without the occurrence of appropriate fertilisation, which is a rare event. Draupada and Dronacharya were rivals, and Draupada desired a son who would be powerful enough to slay Drona.
He was treated with medicine by a Rishi, who also collected his sperm and processed it before putting it in a yajnakunda (offering), from which Dhrishtadyumna and Draupadi were conceived and raised. Lord Krishna's mother, Devki, was pregnant with her seventh child when the embryo was moved to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife, in order to prevent him from being murdered by Kansa during her seventh pregnancy.
The concept of Maqasid al-Shar'ah, or the Law's purposes, is prevalent in Islam. These include the protection of religion, the protection of life, the protection of progeny, the protection of the mind, and the protection of the body. Hifz al-Dn (Protection of Religion), Hifz al-Nafs (Protection of Life), Hifz al-Nasl (Protection of Progeny), Hifz al- (Protection of Wealth). This classification speaks about the fundamental requirements of human beings, which must be safeguarded, preserved, and promoted.
Because Islam promotes reproduction, it supports the treatment of infertility and the care of expectant mothers and their children. It also necessitates the maintenance of genetic lineage. Every infant should be aware of and feel a connection to both of his parents. A new concept in Islamic jurisprudence, hiring a womb for reproduction is not acceptable according to Islamic ethics because surrogacy requires the use of donor sperm, which is a foreign component in the woman's womb, and thus results in the mixing of lineages between the mother and the child. According to Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, an Islamic scholar, the entrance of male sperm into the uterus of a woman with whom he is not married is contrary to Allah's will.
Sarah, Abraham's wife, was told in the Bible that she was unable to have children because of a genetic defect. She coerced her handmaid, Hagar, into having a child with Abraham via the act of copulation. Sarah became envious in this situation, and the surrogate mother refused to reveal the name of the kid to Sarah. Consequently, both the surrogate mother and the baby were kicked out of the home and placed in foster care. We learn about Rachel in Genesis 30.
She instructed her husband Jacob to have sexual relations with her maid Bilhahin in order to have children and, thus, start a household. Jacob goes on to have more children with his harem as well as with both of his wives, Leah and Rachel, in the following years. The ten other sons are envious of Joseph, the special son of Rachel; as a result, they plot to sell him as a slave.
As both of the tales above show clearly, God's goal was for a normal and exclusive sexual connection between a man and a woman. The use of a surrogate mother resulted in the disintegration of the families and the emergence of abnormality in general. The common message was that not trusting God and instead putting matters into one's own hands might result in anarchy on the planet.
Noel Keane, an attorney, was instrumental in facilitating the first ever legal surrogacy contract in history in 1975. According to the terms of the arrangement, the surrogate mother did not get any remuneration in this case. Following this, Keane founded his own infertility center, which was responsible for a large number of surrogate pregnancies in the United States. Louise Brown was the first person to be born as a result of in-vitro fertilizations when she was born in 1978. IVF was also used to create her younger sister, Natalie Brown, who was born four years later and became the world's forty-first kid to be conceived in this manner.
When Natalie gave birth without the use of IVF in May 1999, she became the first person born after conception via IVF to do so. Dr. Subhas Mukhopadhyay of India created the world's second test tube baby, named Durga, just a few months after the birth of Louise Brown in the United States. He was, however, barred from working on in-vitro fertilizations any longer and was moved to another section of the company. In addition, he was denied permission to go to Tokyo to give a paper. Mukhopadhyay committed himself on June 19, 1981, as a result of his dissatisfaction and deteriorating health.
According to scientific documents, 'Harsha' was born on August 16, 1986, and is considered to be India's first human test-tube baby. This accomplishment was attributed to T.C. Anand Kumar, Director of the Institute for Research in Reproduction (IRR) of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). When he travelled to Kolkata to attend a Science Congress in 1997, he was presented with all of Mukhopadhyay's research papers, which he took with him. Following a thorough examination of the papers and conversations with Durga's parents, he became certain that Mukhopadhyay was the person responsible for the birth of India's first human test-tube baby.
Mukhopadhyay was recognised as the creator of the first Indian test tube baby in a paper connected to the topic of artificial intercourse in the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) thanks to the efforts of T.E. Anand Kumar.
The first surrogacy agreement, which included remuneration, was signed between a surrogate and the intended parents in 1980. Elizabeth Kane (a pseudonym) was compensated $10,000 for carrying the couple's child to term. Despite the fact that she had completed her family and had put a kid for adoption, Kane was unprepared for the difficulties she would encounter after the birth of her child, as well as the emotions that would accompany the whole process. Afterwards, she expressed remorse for her choice to be a surrogate mother and wrote about her experiences in a book titled Birth Mother.
Surrogacy from the Indian Point of View:
As a result of long-term relaxation of any legal structure, restrictions, and regulation, India has emerged as a global hub for surrogacy for worldwide deliberate parents. This is because India first legalized commercial surrogacy in 2002 and has grown in popularity as a global hub for surrogacy for worldwide deliberate parents as a result of the relaxation of any legal structure, restrictions, and regulation for a long time, which ensures a legally simple route to parenthood for them.
In addition to these advantages, favorable foreign currency rates make Indian surrogacy a cost-effective option. Although surrogacy became legally permissible in India in 2002, it was structured under guidelines published by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which were rudimentary and devoid of any legislative backing. It was the same as if there were no rules at all.
The women who agreed to serve as surrogates were exposed to inhumane and unscrupulous treatment, as well as an unpleasant atmosphere, terrible living circumstances, and exploitation in the process. When the surrogacy companies in India got huge invoices from the intended parents, they only reimbursed a portion of the surrogate mother's costs, which was a small portion of the total amount.
These women were forced back into the industry by poverty and illiteracy, and they continued to be exploited as baby-making machines by these organizations for the sake of profit, which resulted in their physical and mental health being in poor condition. Recently, there have been many irregularities committed in this company, as well as the continuation of a money-making scam in the name of a baby.
Baby Manji Yamada v/s Union of India & Anr. WP (C) NO. 369 OF 2008, in which a Japanese couple opted for surrogacy through an Indian origin mother, and the baby was born in Anand, Gujarat, which is known as the cradle of the world, was brought before the Supreme Court of India to address the absence of surrogacy legislation in the country. In the month before the baby's birth, the couple divorced, and the woman abandoned the child, who was biologically linked to the father.
The surrogate mother refused to take the child into her own arms. The biological father, Ikufumi Yamada, wanted to bring the kid back to Japan, but the court denied him custody, and the Japanese government refused to allow him to do so since the infant did not have either Japanese or Indian nationality, thus he was unable to do so. A directive from India's highest court was followed by a humanitarian visa being granted to the baby by the Japanese government, which was then followed by the Indian government issuing a travel certificate to the baby's grandmother on her son's behalf, and the child was allowed to leave the country with her grandmother. As a result of this judgment, commercial surrogacy became lawful in India, and it was reaffirmed in Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality L.P.A No. 2151 of 2009, which further showed that commercial surrogacy was allowed in India since there was no legislation banning it.
According to a study published by the Centre for Social Research (CSR), a non-governmental organization (NGO) that deals with women's issues, in 2014, 88 percent of surrogate mothers in Delhi and 76 percent in Mumbai stated that they were not familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract, and that there were more than 2,000 surrogacy clinics operating in India without any registration or authorization at the time.
In India, the surrogacy industry has been criticised by women's rights organizations, which claim that fertility clinics are baby factories for the wealthy, and that widespread illiteracy leads to poor and uneducated women signing contracts that they do not fully understand, thereby exposing them to exploitation.
Exploration of fertility in India:
Surrogacy for commercial purposes became legal in India in 2002. The Kaival Hospital in Anand, Gujarat, used to have a clinic that acquainted infertile couples with local women, cared for the women and provided assurance during the pregnancy, and even provided counselling and support after the birth of a child. Women who are accustomed to carrying babies for couples from a variety of countries, including the United States, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
This was referred to as the phenomenon of wombs for rent. In recent years, India has emerged as a major hub for commercial surrogacy for cosmopolitan parents, thanks to the availability of a large labour force and a high-quality medical facility at a reasonable cost.
Dr. Patel's centre was praised for being one of a kind because it provided a variety of services. Instead of having to bring in their own surrogate, the Anand Gujarat clinic only requires the parents to provide their egg and sperm. The surrogate is chosen from a waiting list of tested and ready surrogates.
An acclimation group of surrogate mothers who lived in a home rented by the clinic under the supervision of a former surrogate mother was formed. At night, they would be occupied with English or computer classes, and during the day, they would receive visits from their husbands and children. They both signed a contract in which the couple agreed to pay for all medical expenses incurred by the surrogate woman on top of her remuneration. It was also stated that the surrogate mother would be responsible for handing over the baby after it was born.
The couples travelled to Anand, Gujarat for the IVF procedure and again for the delivery. Most couples ended up reimbursing the clinic less than $US10000 for the whole process, including fertilizations, the cost to the mother and medical expenditures. Counselling up until then was a significant component of the process. The surrogate mothers would be taught to believe and think of the pregnancy as 'somebody's kid coming to stay at their home for nine months'. According to Dr. Patel, although none of the surrogate moms had a difficult pregnancy or any medical problems; the clinic was diligent in its medical studies and does not take any chances.
However, this approach was criticized on numerous reasons. Critics claimed that the surrogate mothers were frequently exploited as they were forced to go through the efforts of pregnancy for very little monetary advantages. An argument against this disparagement was that this practice benefited both the parties-it provided one party the opportunity to have their own kid and the other to receive an amount of monetary advantage which they may not have been able to achieve otherwise. From a liberal point of view, it might be claimed that it concluded the woman's right to sovereignty over her body which also included informed permission to give her body for any activity or purpose whether it was physical labor, sexual services, organ or tissue donation, or commercial surrogacy.
While in a low-income country such as India, where these surrogate women were mostly from poor families and backgrounds and were not fully aware of their rights, it was analytically recognized that their consent was based on a sense of desperation and helplessness as a result of their financial and educational backwardness, and that this consent could also result in ill treatment. The physiological consequences of pregnancy, such as migraines and back pain, diabetes, high blood pressure, or permanently impaired fertility, as well as death in extreme cases, were also a consideration. There was also a risk of the surrogate mother becoming emotionally attached to the child, which could have occurred.
Scarring and body pain from caesarean sections were found during the postpartum examination, as well as signs of postpartum depression. Furthermore, there was the possibility of condemnation from their communities as well as rejection by their husbands if they did not comply. Because these types of risks were infrequently articulated when the consent of the surrogate mother was obtained, it was debatable whether or not the consent was given with full knowledge of the risks.
According to one common point of contention against medical tourism from an economic standpoint, the traveller spent his or her money in a foreign country rather than in the traveller's home jurisdiction. Both medical and travel expenses were incurred by the group members in question. As a result, the home country suffered a significant loss of income as a result of this enormous sum.
For a developing country like India, the potential financial benefits of participating in this lucrative industry were mind-boggling to contemplate. However, while it was Indian citizens who contributed to the development of medical resources and infrastructure, it was foreign patronage that reaped the benefits of these efforts. That those who pay taxes within the country should be the ones who benefit from the efforts of doctors whose medical education and infrastructural facilities were supported by taxpayer dollars was one of the most common criticisms levelled against medical tourism.
In response to the criticisms stated above, the Indian government decided to outlaw commercial surrogacy in the year 2013, effective immediately.
Surrogacy: What it is and how it works?
In this process, a couple, typically a husband and wife, enters into a comprehensive contract with a surrogate woman. According to the terms and circumstances of the contract, the expectant surrogate mother is inseminated, bears the baby, and gives up all rights to the male sperm donor and his wife in relation to the child. In exchange for bearing the child, the surrogate mother receives a monetary compensation.
The case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality and Others S.C.A No.3020 of 2008 is instructive in that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into in the names of the intending father and the second respondent, the surrogate mother whose name is listed as designated father's wife, which resulted in vexatious legal matters concerning the subject of the surrogate child's birth certificate, which was ultimately resolved in favour of the intending father.
It implies that the person who supplied the sperm for IVF retains exclusive custody of the child, and the child will be adopted by the individual's spouse. It is also stated in the court orders that are made prior to the birth of the child, as the person is identified as the child's father. Forms of permission, on the other hand, are often signed after the baby is born, to provide the surrogate woman time to make up her mind.
In an embryo transfer case, the court-provided pre-birth comprehensive papers identify the couple as the biological parents of the new born infant, thus establishing their parental rights. Their names and contact information are included on the birth certificate, and the surrogate mother makes no claim to the child.
Large numbers of couples have benefitted greatly from the surrogacy procedure or may have contemplated adopting a child via this method in the past. Because of the increased usage of the procedure, it is particularly important to examine whether or not the agreement is lawful in its current form. The sale of the infant may result in a violation of criminal laws, which would raise questions about its legality.
The agreement with the surrogate mother includes provisions for dealing with issues such as whether adoption is a good fit and if the kid is legitimate. As a result of such an agreement, the law would control the parties, balancing specific parties' rights against their duties.
Surrogate Mother's Legal Rights:
However, it is possible that the growth is masking growing concerns about the rights of women who choose to be surrogate mothers, the majority of whom come from impoverished households with little financial resources and are frequently uneducated. Surrogate moms are from low-income households and are not well informed about their legal obligations. Surrogacy advertising and publicity have also sparked worries about the illicit market and child trafficking, which have resulted in vulnerable women being transformed into baby suppliers as a result of the publicity and advertising.
Specifically, the ladies are chosen for their ability to serve as carrier surrogate moms or egg donors. In India, they are selected based on factors such as appearance, compliance, and financial reliance on the government. In the commercial surrogacy industry, the process of pregnancy has been devolved into a business, and the baby has been reduced to the status of a commodity.
People frequently specify criteria for having a kid in the same way as they would for any other consumer product, as if they were buying a product. People who take on the position of surrogate mother are often from a lower-middle-class background, with a special emphasis on those who are in financial need.
Surrogate mothers are exploited in India, and commercial firms and agents take nearly all of the monetary gains as a result of the country's lack of invariabilities laws and regulations. The whole surrogacy programme is transparent from beginning to end. The amount of money that the surrogate mother receives is very restricted.
For a surrogate mother, the situation is very challenging. Women of pastoral ancestry are forced into becoming surrogate mothers so that their husbands may profit financially from the arrangement. Those who fall into this category have no right to make decisions about their bodies or about their lives. In certain instances, the negotiating party establishes conditions for the pregnant surrogate lady, such as the need that she remain in a specific location for eight months if she is receiving prenatal care as a mitigation.
In such cases, surrogate mothers are moved to hostels under the pretense of receiving antepartum care for the duration of the pregnancy, which is not the case. The actual goal is to protect and reassure her, as well as to avoid the social shame associated with being an outsider in one's society. These surrogate mothers spend the whole of their pregnancy worrying about their homes and their children as well.
They are only allowed to go outdoors for antepartum visits, and they are only allowed to contact with their relatives on Sundays, according to the rules. The worst part is that they are unable to be paid in the case of negative pregnancy outcomes, and they are not provided with any monetary benefits or post-pregnancy medical and psychological treatment.
Due to the fact that they must live away from their home, this is a disaster for them. In the majority of surrogacy contracts, once the baby is delivered, the surrogate mother who carried the baby agrees to relinquish all parental rights to the child and the contract ends. The surrogate mother has the right, as a result of her surrogacy duty, to be fairly and adequately paid for all of her medical and other expenses, so long as they are directly related to the pregnancy in question.
Some extra medical expenses are often protected because if they are not properly addressed in a fair amount of time, certain issues may arise that may have an effect on the infant. The surrogate mother has the right to receive medical advice throughout the course of her pregnancy and beyond, beginning with the first stages of her consideration of surrogacy. Her participation in the treatment will be required, as would that of the prospective parents.
Surrogate Children's Rights:
Concerning children's rights, there are additional issues to consider. The rights of children are inadequate. Having the baby given to you after birth may have a negative impact on nursing. Unlike biological children, children born via surrogacy do not get to meet their surrogate moms.
What is the legal position on surrogacy?
According to the Surrogacy Act, the couple seeking surrogacy must be a close relative of the person who they want to be the surrogate mother in order to be considered. The law, on the other hand, does not specify who will be considered near relations. The creation of a National Surrogacy Board is contemplated under the Act in order to ensure that the rules and regulations are administered in a uniform manner. These authorities are appointed and sustained by this Board, which also confers upon them the authority and competence to regulate and oversee surrogate activities.
The Act now mandates that both the couple seeking surrogacy and the surrogate mother who is willing to provide it obtain eligibility certifications, which must be issued by appropriate and competent authorities. Foreigners and Non-Resident Indians are subject to the most stringent restrictions under this Act (NRIs). It is no longer possible for them to pursue surrogacy in the country. This was done after a number of instances of baby abandonment and child trafficking were discovered and investigated. This omission has been the source of many disputes, all of which have revolved around the issue of whether the restriction imposed was properly thought through.
However, since same-sex couples do not come within the scope of this Act, the concept of equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community is dampened, as is the idea of equal rights for all people. NCP leader Supriya Sule said that the law was excellent, but it was not up to date with today's technology. Individuals who are in partnerships other than conventional monogamous marriages are subject to the same restrictions.
Thus, not only gays but even single parents and couples living together have been excluded from the scope of this Act. In India, they are unable to seek surrogate pregnancy. The couple wishing to use a surrogate must have been married for at least five years and must have obtained a competent certified doctor's certificate confirming their infertility before proceeding with the procedure.
Couples who already have children are also subject to a further restriction. In India, it is not allowed for childbearing couples to obtain surrogacy services. Such couples, on the other hand, are eligible to adopt children under current legislation.
Additional requirements apply to the surrogate mother, including the following:
Surrogacy Poses a Number of Challenges:
In addition to the issues already stated, one of the most pressing issues that must be addressed is the issue of financial security for the mother who is serving as a surrogate.
In countries where commercial surrogacy is permitted, such as India, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Thailand, and a few states in the United States of America, there are legislations in place that provide some relief (relief) to the surrogate mother. However, as has been reported in the media, it is more often than not the case that both the deliberated parents and the surrogate mother are exploited in the name of benefaction. When this occurs, the laws and standards that have been put in place are ineffectively enforced.
One other problem that is causing tension is the subject of the kid who was delivered via surrogate motherhood. A lot has been written about the case of the Israeli couple who had difficulty proving paternity of their kid, as well as the story of the German couple who had to fight a long court struggle to get citizenship for their Indian surrogate child, in both Indian and international media.
In the United States of America, mandatory testing in terms of psychological and health criteria is practiced; however, Indian laws focus only on the infectious disease's aspect of the matter, failing to take into consideration the impact of psychological health on the consecutive intended parents as well as the surrogate.
The exploitation of surrogates is widespread, with many women from low socioeconomic strata being drawn to, engaged with, and enticed into surrogacy with the promise of quick monetary gain. These women are often left high and dry, with the delegates and ART clinics collecting the lion's share of the money and providing no post-delivery care, as required by Indian regulations and standards.
The two scenarios: the Indian scenario and the international scenario
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the year 2005, developed and created a set of rules that must be adhered to by any and all people or organizations involved in the area of supported and assisted reproductive methods, as well as surrogacy.
It outlined precise procedures to be followed throughout the surrogacy process, and it also stated explicitly that gestational surrogacy is the recognized modality to be followed in a commercial sense in India. There were extensive procedures in place for the certification and recognition of ART clinics in the nation, and state and district level forums were established to oversee the performance of these clinics as well.
Following that, the Assisted Reproductive Techniques Bill was drafted, although it has not yet been put into effect in the nation. It was based on the recommendations that were stated in the bulletin by the International Commission on Medical Research (ICMR); nevertheless, just as it was the case with the ICMR guidelines, it is also the case with the proposed law. However, although there were many problems that were handled and properly and appropriately regulated, there is still room for improvement.
In the absence of a single point of redress mechanism created or planned to be implemented by the legislation, a surrogate mother or the intended parents may attempt to resolve their grievances via alternative means. Several factors, such as age, number of embryo implantations, blood transfusions, and other factors were listed in the proposed legislation for the surrogate, but there was no discussion of whether precise demographic requirements should be established for the intended parents or not.
Despite the fact that the act does not distinguish between caste, creed or other factors, the authors believe that a minimum standard of care must be exercised to ensure that the purposeful parents are genuine and not criminal rudiments, that they are stable and can support a new member in their family, and that the new house treats babies fairly and without discrimination.
This is a lengthy procedure that should be carried out in a way similar to that which is followed in western nations, where parents of adopted children are exposed to replicative, but non-intrusive, verification of the wellbeing of their kid. In India, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, which was launched by the government, may help to accomplish this goal.
In addition, the The Delhi Artificial Insemination (Human) Bill 1995 is a piece of legislation that ought to be mentioned. Which, although being productive only in the state, was originally developed to restrict the proliferation of different ART clinics across the state. It has also been recouped as a result of the ICMR recommendations.
According to the comprehensive rules, there will be no disciplinary action taken against physicians who commit misconduct in clinics. The Indian Medical Council (MCI) and the State Medical Councils are in charge of dealing with the issue, which falls within their jurisdiction (SMC).
A legally valid contract between the intended parents and the surrogate mother is deemed to have been formed under the Indian Contracts Act 1872, and the surrogate mother relinquishes all rights to the child as part of the agreement.
In the U.S., the situation is similar in a few states where, through contested cases, it has been kept in a position comparable to Indian legislation where the surrogate mother gives up all rights to the kid. However, the situation is different in the UK, where the mother may claim the infant up to 2 years after birth, and it is the court's discretion to approve this.
However, due to the US adopting federal government structure, the laws are not centrally consolidated. The U.S. state of California recognizes the act of commercial surrogacy, whereas Washington State considers commercial surrogacy undesirable. Traditional surrogacy is permitted in the State of California, however in this instance the biological mother remains the legal mother, whereas traditional surrogacy is not legally recognized in the UK and India.
Traditional surrogacy is banned in Utah State, United States of America, and it is a requirement that at least one intended parent must supply one gamete in gestational surrogacy. The U.S. state of Virginia does not register the intended parents as legal parents on the baby's birth, but instead needs a legal procedure to alter the parents name once both previous and surrogacy consent is obtained.
In another US State, New York State, any and all surrogacy arrangements including remuneration of any sort are deemed invalid and unenforceable, comparable to UK regulations and opposed to India's proposed law.
The Surrogacy Laws in India:
A silently operating booming industry in India, which, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), generates more than $2 billion per year, but in response to all of these unregulated tactics and to pave the way for a safe and legalized passage for all parties involved, the Supreme Court directed that a statute be established as soon as possible, taking into consideration the enormous scale of the industry.
Even the Indian Legislation Commission, in its 228th Report, which was presented on the 5th of August, 2009, said that a suitable law governing surrogacy in the nation was urgently required. The title of the report was Need for Legislation to Regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics as well as Rights and Obligations of Parties to a Surrogacy, and the report was written by a group of lawyers.
The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill, 2008, was drafted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which falls under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It has been amended several times by the Ministry of Law and Justice, including in 2010, 2013, and 2016, but the legislation has been amended and proposed numerous times but has never been passed.
However, in 2013, surrogacy by foreign heterosexual couples and single parents was outlawed, and in 2015, commercial surrogacy for foreign nationals was outlawed as well, with the entrance of embryos for research reasons being the sole reason for their admission. Shortly after, in 2016, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Law, 2016 was presented and approved by the Lok Sabha, recommending that altruistic, domestic surrogacy be legalized. However, the bill was unable to be implemented because of the adjournment of the Parliamentary session.
The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2019 is a reintroduction of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016, which failed to pass through both chambers of parliament. This bill was presented in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2019, and it was approved on August 5, 2019, according to the Lok Sabha website. On the 21st of November, the Rajya Sabha passed a resolution referring the Bill to a Selected Committee for further consideration and consultation.
The committee's report was submitted on the 5th of February, in the year 2020. After taking into consideration the ideas from the various stakeholders, the chosen committee came up with a total of 15 (fifteen) recommendations that would be included into the 2020 legislation. A revised version of the draught law enacted by the Lok Sabha in August 2019 was introduced as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020, which was approved by the Cabinet after all 15 suggestions of the select committee were accepted.
The Amendments to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020:
There are many important and historic improvements brought in by this 2020 law, which include:
The Bill fully restrains commercial surrogacy and only permits altruistic surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate mother would not get any financial compensation and rewards for her pregnancy, save for the minimum medical cost and insurance coverage. Commercial surrogacy will be banned, consisting of the selling and acquisition of human embryos and gametes.
The current law also removes the concept of 'infertility' which was formerly defined as the inability to conceive after five years of unprotected sexual intercourse. The select committee was of the opinion that 5 (five) years is too lengthy a time for a couple to wait for a baby and viewed it as unreasonable and against the purposes of the Act.
The Bill permits surrogacy to Indian married (Heterosexual) couples (between 23 to 50 years for woman and 26 to 55 years for husband) and extends the applicability to cover Indian origin Married Couples, and Indian Single Woman (only widows and divorcees in the age range between 35 and 45 years).
The planned Insurance cover for surrogate moms has been increased from 16 months to 36 months, to offset the significant risks of medical problems even after pregnancy.
Before proceeding with surrogacy, the couple must acquire a Certificate of Essentiality as well as a Certificate of Eligibility (based on confirmed infertility) from the appropriate authorities. It further states that intended partners should not, under any circumstances, leave their new born child as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. During the adoption procedure, the new born infant will be entitled to all of the rights and privileges that are accessible to a natural child, and there will be no choosing of gender.
The law also governs the operation of surrogacy clinics by requiring them to register with the appropriate and relevant authorities on a necessary and compulsory basis.
The law defines commercial surrogacy as the practice of undertaking or advertising for commercial surrogacy, importing or selling human embryos for surrogacy, exploiting the surrogating mother or the surrogate child, and abandoning the kid as crimes. Prison sentences of up to 10 lakh rupees and fines of up to ten years would be imposed for such crimes, as would be the penalties and punishments.
A National surrogacy board (NSB) and State surrogacy boards (SSB) would be established, with its primary functions being to advise the government on policy issues and to supervise the operation of surrogacy clinics, according to the proposed legislation.
Surrogacy Agreements and the Bill's Effect:
Since the Bill has established rigid regulatory procedures, analysing the legality of surrogacy contracts is essential. Surrogacy contracts play a vital part in surrogacy. Without a surrogacy contract, regulating the procedure becomes extremely difficult since it may lead to a lot of legal problems. The main aim of surrogacy contracts is to equally safeguard surrogate moms, intended parents, and infant.
Financial and legal issues are covered by such contracts.
Surrogacy contracts pose 3 (three) contradictory questions:
The most contentious topic in surrogacy contracts is whether such arrangements amount to selling infants. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020, put an end to all such speculations by attempting to introduce a blanket prohibition on commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy advocates believe that a woman has the right to propagate and may seek remuneration during gestation. Such an argument, however, is unlawful in law since commercial surrogacy arrangements disregard and weaken the rights of surrogate mothers.
In the instance of Baby M, the court found it extremely difficult to comprehend consent in surrogacy situations. The surrogate mother would establish strong connection to a kid that may lead to alterations in the baby's desire to separate. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2020 therefore takes this aspect into account and stipulates that a baby born through surrogacy will be considered the biological child of the intending couple or mother.
Another question that arose was whether any law prohibits surrogacy contracts or opposes public policy. In some circumstances, courts may reject a public-policy considerations contract. Many opponents claim that altruistic surrogacy in itself is an unethical contract, since it is against the child's interests. The Supreme Court interpreted Section (23) of Indian Contracts Act 1872 to public interest or benefit agreements.
However, establishing a real connection between allowing surrogacy and public interest is extremely difficult, and in such instances public policy does not fit in. Indian courts have supported all kinds of surrogacy contracts and recognized reproductive rights as part of the privacy right.
In the case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality L.P.A No. 2151 of 2009, the Gujarat High Court held that while rules and regulations are required to protect the rights of a surrogate mother, guardianship, fertility clinic responsibilities, etc., the legal position remains the same, i.e., public welfare and policy does not affect the enforceability of surrogacy contracts. The 2020 Bill aims to address these voids by substantiating surrogacy laws.
Furthermore, it cannot be argued that the purpose of surrogacy contracts is contrary to the legislation in place of section 24 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 because section 35 of the 2020 Bill expressly bans commercial surrogacy, exploitation of surrogate women and infants born through surrogacy. It castigates the same. Therefore, the 2020 Bill has guaranteed that surrogacy contracts remain intact. The safeguards were also allocated to regulatory agencies.
Taking the Judicial Approach:
The past two decades has witnessed an exponential growth in surrogacy. The 2020 Bill was intended to properly regulate surrogacy, limit commercial surrogacy and enable ethical surrogacy. To be widely accepted among the people, every Bill must pass The Golden Triangle Test.
Fundamental rights are enforceable by every Indian citizen regardless of birthplace, caste, ethnicity, creed, or gender. Among all the articles regulating fundamental rights, Articles 14, 19 and 21 are called the 'Golden Triangle' of the Indian Constitution.
Some Bill sections, however, do not comply with constitutional requirements. A deeper examination shows that the Bill fails to pass the 'Golden Triangle Test' established by India's Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present section highlights Bill 2020's constitutional legitimacy.
Article 14:
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures 'equality before law and equal protection of laws for all citizens.' It bans class laws but allows reasonable categorization. The Hon'ble Supreme Court established two criteria to satisfy the requirement of reasonable categorization, i.e., comprehensible differential and rational nexus.
Furthermore, in the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348, the conventional notion of equality was extended where it was ruled that equality is a dynamic concept and its dimensions cannot be cribbed, cabineted and limited to old doctrinary limits. If the categorization is not based on intelligible distinction and has no connection with the intended item, the differentiation is deemed invalid.
Recently, India's Supreme Court overturned section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., decriminalizing consensual sexual encounters between two adult people of any sexuality. The Bill, however, goes against this decision. It rejects Homosexual Couples rights to commission a kid and refuses to recognize these couples as legitimate.
Moreover, in the landmark decision of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, the Supreme Court of India recognized Transgender as third gender. But 2020, Bill is quiet on giving the Third Genders equal rights. The reasons of the Bill are extremely limited, invalidating same-sex couples and Transgender from contracting surrogacy.
There is no logical connection to enable altruistic surrogacy to married, widowed, or divorced Indian nationals with the purpose of the Bill. A deeper examination of 2020, Bill shows that marriage-based categorization is not acceptable under Article 14 of India's Constitution.
Moreover, if single parents, i.e., non-married persons, are permitted to adopt children. Bill 2020 aims to prohibit abuse of this technique and safeguard women from exploitation. Domestic surrogacy process, however, may be a hotspot for corruption and fraud.
Article 19:
Such Article of India's Constitution allows for freedom of trade and profession. Article 19(6) establishes the basis for limiting such right reasonably. Apparently, however, the 2020 Bill portrays itself in the public interest, an in-depth examination shows that it does not.
In Chintaman Rao v/s State of Madhya Pradesh 1950 SCR 759, the Supreme Court ruled that 'fair limitation' should not be arbitrary and disproportionate. It was also ruled that a fair balance must exist between the freedom given and the limitation imposed.
The Apex Court ruled that a complete prohibition on bar dancing is unconstitutional because many women would then have to take up odd occupations to live. Similarly, a prohibition on commercial surrogacy would violate Article 19(1) (g). The subterranean surrogacy danger also hides as a consequence of the blanket prohibition.
Article 21:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to life as entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution also encompasses the 'right to livelihood' in the leading decision of the Indian Consumer Education and Research Center and Ors. V. Union 1995 SCC (3) 42. The identical concept was earlier recognised in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51. However, by imposing a blanket prohibition on commercial surrogacy, the 2020 Bill likely to violate the right to livelihood since impoverished women are urgently anxious to earn money to meet ends.
It also affects women who wish to achieve some sort of financial independence or security for themselves and their family by consenting to be surrogates instead of monetary remuneration.
Furthermore, in the case of Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the right to reproduction under Article 21 is an essential component of 'right to life.' A woman's reproductive rights encompass carrying a baby, giving birth, and raising children. Privacy, dignity and integrity rights are also implicated.
In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264, the learned judge, after referring to Kharak Singh and American decisions, stated the law as follows: - Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacy of the home, family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.
Thus, denying surrogacy rights to individuals belonging to the LGBTQ community, single persons, elderly couples and limiting them to heterosexual couples, widows and divorce women of a certain age contradicts the basic right to life under Article 21 of the former.
Recently, in historic judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 the Supreme Court ruled that a person's privacy extends to his/her own liberty of mind, body and other choices. The Apex Court also examined the case of B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2000 (1) ALD 199, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that State intervention in procreation amounted to a direct infringement of one's right to privacy.
Therefore, given that reproduction or procreation is a highly personal and private choice and must be respected, the 2020 Bill must guarantee minimal state involvement in such a decision-making process. On many accounts, the government has failed to explain why unmarried and childless women cannot become surrogate mothers. A woman alone should have the right to determine her body, fertility, and parenting choices. The 2020 Bill therefore partly linked with the right to livelihood, privacy and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Looking at the aforementioned precedents and rationale, it may be determined that the 2020 Bill does not pass the Golden Triangle Test. It must be kept in mind that in India, surrogacy is not simply another industry, it is the main source of income for economically devastated women. It is also a major source of income for individuals at surrogacy clinics.
Therefore, the 2020 Bill must not endanger all parties engaged in the process. It must be changed to achieve a proper balance between its requirements and people' rights. The Bill as a whole is not wrong; it requires modest changes to become a comprehensive piece of law.
Exploring Potential Loopholes and Offering Recommendations:
The goal of law in a community is to preserve people's freedom, in addition to acting as a tool for distributing positive entitlements. In order to fulfil its responsibilities, legislation must keep pace with emerging technology in order to reach the poor. The 2020 Bill places a total prohibition on commercial surrogacy, allowing only altruistic surrogacy.
It appears, however, that this tread wasn't fully noticed. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes an appealing option for parties. That's because it gives the impoverished surrogate mother financial security and also involves foreign currency investment.
India confronts the serious issue of poverty, and with the introduction of surrogacy in the nation, impoverished women engage in such processes. Therefore, a halfway must be reached that allows commercial surrogacy, but in a better and adequate regulated manner. Prices must be set by the proper authorities, and negotiating should not be allowed.
Despite the fact that the Bill encourages altruistic surrogacy, it also has the potential to encourage black marketing and corruption, as well as a covert surrogacy process. In the case of altruistic contracts, the gestational carrier may suffer more out-of-pocket expenses, and the intended parents may also incur additional expenses as a result of misinformation or other aberrations.
It has not been addressed in any way by the 2020 legislation. It entirely relies on the assumption that altruistic surrogate mothers are not exploited, completely ignoring the reality that unpaid surrogacy is likewise an exploitative practice. Furthermore, the 2020 Bill anticipates that a surrogate mother will go through the whole surrogacy procedure out of sympathy for the intended parents.
Ironically, the so-called altruistic model encourages the use of forced labour. As a result, the idea of compensatory surrogacy must be established in order to address this problem. This will compensate the surrogate mother for the losses she has experienced in terms of income, sufferings, health, and, ultimately, death, among other things, and as a result, the phrase altruistic surrogacy should be substituted with the term compensatory surrogacy.
The 2020 Bill recommends that the parties get a Certificate of Eligibility before to beginning the surrogacy procedure in order to ensure that the process is compliant with the law. But it doesn't say anything about how long certificates must be valid before they are revoked.
In a similar vein, the Bill allows for the permission of the competent authorities and the agreement of the surrogate mother for an abortion, but it makes no mention of the consent of the intended parents. It opens up a loophole that may be exploited severely and intensively, and surrogate moms may be able to take use of it.
Due to the fact that surrogacy is more of a personal decision than a commercial duty, such loopholes should not be permitted since they may result in a violation in the regulatory system, which can result in serious conflicts between the parties involved in the process. Furthermore, it must be guaranteed that a woman medical practitioner is appointed to work in fertility clinics on a full-time basis at the district and state levels at the federal and state levels.
A clause of this kind would guarantee the trust of both parties engaged in the transaction. As a result, in order to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill, such unconventional measures must be put in place. Because of widespread and far-reaching issues such as poverty and unemployment, women who work for a living are more than willing to take the role of surrogate mother in order to help others. The situation is so dire that women are considering alternatives to the notion of renting their wombs in order to provide for their families.
The surrogate mother's income loss during pregnancy is not reimbursed, however, since there is no provision in the Bill that specifically addresses this issue. Compensation that is appropriate and equitable for the surrogate mother must be provided, and the process must be controlled by the government itself. Surrogacy also raises the issue of forced labour, which is a concern. First and foremost, it always concerns the fundamental existence of human people, their bodies, and their sense of self-identification. Second, the majority of people rely on manual labour for their subsistence. Because of this reliance, some people are at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the buyer of their labour.
A counselling section should be included in every Reproductive Medical Clinic, as a precaution against the use of forced labour. This should be emphasized in light of the problem of forced labour. There is potential for this to be an effective and useful technique for determining the mental state of the surrogate method participants. Fair and impartial disclosure of the whole surrogacy procedure, as well as the dangers and hazards connected with it, must be given to the surrogate mother before she agrees to participate. In addition, any unanticipated circumstances of divorce between the intended couple, as well as any break between them, must be taken into consideration.
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to anticipate such circumstances, the Bill must contain clear and explicit rules addressing the duties and roles of intending couples and surrogate mothers in the event that surrogate infants are abandoned by their intended parents. Consequently, high standards of care, informed consent, and recompense for all those engaged in the provision of Reproductive Services in India must be ensured by the law.
Surrogacy is considered to be a component of Assisted Reproductive Technology (hence referred to as 'ART'). The Surrogacy Bill must be controlled with the ART Bill. Both the Bills are intimately interwoven because ART Bill specifies the method, the techniques, and the developing technology of reproductive medicine in surrogacy while the Surrogacy Bill deals with the consequences and the legal ethical problems resulting from such agreements.
Some people are concerned about the possibility of introducing the ART Bill before the Surrogacy Bill. The ART Bill provides a complete framework and because it does not impact on surrogacy, the government must guarantee that there is greater synchronization between both the Bills. Hence, the Surrogacy Bill shall come into effect only after the passage of the ART Bill. The ART Bill, the Surrogacy Bill, the modification to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and the older Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act together constitute the regulatory authority and safeguard the Reproductive Rights and choices of surrogate mothers in India.
Since surrogacy is a socially and culturally sensitive issue in India, no loopholes regarding the same must exist. It also has significant and deep psychological consequences and is a severe issue of privacy. Therefore, the appropriate authorities must be open to ideas and suggestions to serve the best interests of the parties.
Conclusion:
People's lives have been drastically altered by the advent of science and modern technologies. Read more about it here. It has also brought forth difficulties and issues that were previously unheard of, which is a mixed blessing. The study of biotechnology has assisted us in the discovery of sex determination methods as well as other scientific advances such as DNA testing, fingerprinting, and other technologies that have made it easier to administer justice.
The recent advancements in the area of embryonic stem cells have had a significant impact on human existence in a variety of ways. Furthermore, the notion of motherhood has been broadened and redefined to encompass genetic mothers, surrogate mothers, biological mothers, and social mothers, among other things. In the area of Reproductive Technologies, there has been a remarkable transformation during the last three decades. Techniques such as donor insemination, in-vitro fertilizations, and embryo transfer procedures have been developed by the field of reproductive medical sciences, and they have totally changed and revolutionized the environment in which women reproduce.
Many families have spared a great deal of sorrow as a result of the scientific technology answer, and this solution has turned out to be a godsend for many couples who are now blessed with a child that is descended from their own DNA. Surrogacy has become a need in today's culture as a result of technological advancements. It is the final resort for infertile couples and for people who are unable to produce a biological child of their own. As long as there is a lack of children in the family, surrogacy will continue to be a significant and dominating problem, with significant social and psychological consequences for the families involved.
As a result, surrogacy must be viewed through the prism of fundamental rights. Furthermore, because public policy is a concept that is constantly evolving, the government must enact laws that take into account shifting social patterns as they occur. In terms of social, moral, ethical, legal, and scientific issues, the proposed Bill is a one-of-a-kind and distinct blend. It makes a powerful and determined effort to achieve a balance between the competing interests.
It prohibits commercial surrogacy and establishes penalties for those who do so; however, it is more important to protect the interests of the women who provide a womb for surrogacy first and foremost in this regard. Surrogate mothers must be provided with some form of monetary compensation, which may include the provision of appropriate insurance and the payment of medical expenses, which are borne by the surrogate mother in addition to her physical and mental suffering.
Due to the fact that surrogacy is a financial factor and component, in addition to being a social and emotional factor, this must be completed without fail. Generally speaking, it is regarded as the most important and fundamental factor that has a direct relationship with the right to subsistence. The surrogate mother's reproductive rights must not only be properly safeguarded, but they must also be respected; in addition, she must be provided with a special level of care during her pregnancy.
It is essential to consider the surrogate mother's physical and emotional well-being. Prior to entering into surrogacy agreements or contracts, proactive measures must be made to advise both parties on their legal options. The ART Bill must be passed prior to the Surrogacy Bill in order to improve and amplify the smooth working of both Bills, resulting in a stronger and more effective regulatory system overall.
To summarize, surrogacy is a critically important industry in India, and it is expected to expand at an exponential rate in the next years, according to industry analysts. Due to the fact that it is intimately connected to the social and psychological fabric of society, caution must be used in the process of governing it. For any gaps or loopholes to be avoided, the relevant authorities must go through everything with a fine-tooth comb before proceeding. It is essential that all parties involved in the surrogacy process and procedure receive thorough training and are fully informed of the health and legal issues that surround it.
This includes healthcare providers, infertility clinics, medical tourism companies, as well as the broader tourism industry, the concerned governments, and women who provide surrogacy services. Better regulation of the law may be made possible with the participation of well-informed stakeholders.
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Yash Patil (Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune)
Surrogacy is a procedure in which a woman agrees to bear a kid for someone else, such as two homosexual couple, a single individual, or a couple who are unable to conceive on their own. Following the birth of the child, the birth mother transfers custody and guardianship of the child to the intended father or mother (s). Birth mothers, surrogates, and other similar terms are used to describe women who carry children for other people. When a baby is delivered via a surrogacy agreement, the parents of the child are referred to as the commissioning or intended parents (s).
When a woman (the surrogate mother) decides to endure pregnancy and carry a child for another person or people, the person or persons who will become the child's parent(s) after birth are referred to as the surrogate parents. It is an abnormal method of conceiving a kid. As a result, it is a contract in which a woman agrees to carry a kid for the benefit of another spouse. It is a form of parenting, in which the commissioning parents sign a legal arrangement with a woman to give birth to a child for them and surrender all the parental rights to the intended parents. It is sometimes referred to be known as a Contract of Pregnancy.
Couples suffering from infertility or other problems depend on this alternative method of childbearing to carry their children. The payment of a monetary remuneration may or may not be involved in surrogacy agreements. Commercial surrogacy is defined as the practice of receiving payment for the arrangement. Surrogacy is only allowed in certain countries if there is no exchange of money, thus couples wanting a commercial surrogacy in a nation where it is prohibited must go to a country where it is permitted. Commercial surrogacy is arranged via the participation of third-party agencies and is governed by a legally binding contract. It is altruistic surrogacy, on the other side, if the surrogate mother receives no compensation other than reimbursement for her costs.
Surrogacy has been categorized into different kinds:
On the basis of Nature of Surrogacy Agreement
- Altruistic Surrogacy:
The surrogate mother gets no financial compensation for her pregnancy or for giving up the baby to the intended parents save for the required medical costs. This typically occurs when the surrogate mother is a relative of the intending parents.
- Commercial surrogacy:
The surrogate mother gets compensated aside from the required medical costs. This typically occurs when the surrogate mother is not related to the intending parents.
On the basis of Nature of Fertilization
- Traditional Surrogacy:
The surrogate mother bears the baby for the entire term and delivers it for the couple via artificial insemination. The infant is the biological child of that Surrogate Mother.
- Gestational Surrogacy:
In this, the eggs of the mother are fertilized by the father's/donor's sperm and then the embryo is put into the uterus of the surrogate. In this scenario the biological mother will be the one whose eggs are utilized and the surrogate mother is the birth mother of the baby.
Although surrogacy has long raised ethical issues, the acceleration in these operations makes the problem much more essential. The economics of surrogate pregnancy advances quicker than our understanding to its implications with hundreds of new clinics set to start. A surrogate is a realistic option and becoming an increasingly popular choice for couples who cannot produce children.
A surrogate mother is a woman who has chosen to get pregnant and deliver a child particularly for a couple she has a contract with. A surrogate mother maybe the baby's genetic mother, in which case medical practitioners assist to fertilize her eggs; or she may be a gestational carrier and have an embryo placed in her uterus.
As for homosexual men, they may agree to utilize a traditional surrogacy in certain countries; one of them may use his sperm to fertilize the surrogate mother's egg via artificial insemination. Then, the woman carries the baby and gives birth. Also, a homosexual couple may choose an egg donor, fertilize the given egg, and then have the embryo placed into a gestational carrier to carry until pregnancy.
Origins of surrogacy dating back to antiquity:
Surrogacy is a topic of debate for many people in a variety of areas, including legal, social, ethical, and many more. It accommodates very diametrically opposed circumstances since some people support it while many others reject it. It also accommodates instances where a kid born via this method may be acceptable but not respected in many organizations today.
A surrogate is a person authorized to act in the place of another, according to Black Law's Dictionary.
The term Surrogate comes from the Latin word Surrogatus, which means Substitution or Replacement. Surrogacy is an old practice that is well-known in nearly all nations and civilizations across the world. Natural Surrogacy, Gestational Surrogacy, Commercial Surrogacy, and Altruistic Surrogacy are the four most common kinds of surrogacy in the United States.
Because of the Baby M case, the year 1986 is regarded as a watershed moment in the history of surrogacy. In the state of New Jersey, a couple engaged with a surrogate in order to become parents. Following the birth of a daughter, the surrogate declined the monetary offer and instead decided to keep the kid with her and her family. The Court found the surrogacy contract to be in violation of public policy and declared the use of money in the transaction to be illegal, criminal, and degrading to women. The surrogacy contract was cancelled. However, in the best interests of the child, the custody of the child was given to the intended parents, with only privilege visits privileges granted to the surrogate mother.
Surrogacy in return for monetary compensation has grown in popularity in tandem with scientific advancements in the fields of infertility and reproductive technologies. Commercial surrogacy, as opposed to traditional surrogacy, is a more contemporary form of conception, and the phrase wombs for hire was created when it became possible to grow a full-term kid in any womb.
Despite the fact that the Indian society has not always been welcoming of the concept of surrogacy, the practice has been practiced from ancient times.
In the Mahabharata, Gandhari, the wife of Dhritarashtra, became pregnant, but the pregnancy lasted almost two years, after which she gave birth to a semi-solid mass of flesh and bone. In the mass of cells, Bhagwan Vyasa discovered 101 cells that were normal. These cells were placed in a nutritional medium and allowed to grow in vitro for the duration of the study. The male children (Duryodhana and other Kauravas) outnumbered the female children (Duhsheela).
The female children outnumbered the male children (Duryodhana and other Kauravas). The tale of Drishtadyumna and Draupadi's birth also contains a reference to the birth of a baby outside of the mother's womb and without the occurrence of appropriate fertilisation, which is a rare event. Draupada and Dronacharya were rivals, and Draupada desired a son who would be powerful enough to slay Drona.
He was treated with medicine by a Rishi, who also collected his sperm and processed it before putting it in a yajnakunda (offering), from which Dhrishtadyumna and Draupadi were conceived and raised. Lord Krishna's mother, Devki, was pregnant with her seventh child when the embryo was moved to the womb of Rohini, Vasudeva's first wife, in order to prevent him from being murdered by Kansa during her seventh pregnancy.
The concept of Maqasid al-Shar'ah, or the Law's purposes, is prevalent in Islam. These include the protection of religion, the protection of life, the protection of progeny, the protection of the mind, and the protection of the body. Hifz al-Dn (Protection of Religion), Hifz al-Nafs (Protection of Life), Hifz al-Nasl (Protection of Progeny), Hifz al- (Protection of Wealth). This classification speaks about the fundamental requirements of human beings, which must be safeguarded, preserved, and promoted.
Because Islam promotes reproduction, it supports the treatment of infertility and the care of expectant mothers and their children. It also necessitates the maintenance of genetic lineage. Every infant should be aware of and feel a connection to both of his parents. A new concept in Islamic jurisprudence, hiring a womb for reproduction is not acceptable according to Islamic ethics because surrogacy requires the use of donor sperm, which is a foreign component in the woman's womb, and thus results in the mixing of lineages between the mother and the child. According to Mufti Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, an Islamic scholar, the entrance of male sperm into the uterus of a woman with whom he is not married is contrary to Allah's will.
Sarah, Abraham's wife, was told in the Bible that she was unable to have children because of a genetic defect. She coerced her handmaid, Hagar, into having a child with Abraham via the act of copulation. Sarah became envious in this situation, and the surrogate mother refused to reveal the name of the kid to Sarah. Consequently, both the surrogate mother and the baby were kicked out of the home and placed in foster care. We learn about Rachel in Genesis 30.
She instructed her husband Jacob to have sexual relations with her maid Bilhahin in order to have children and, thus, start a household. Jacob goes on to have more children with his harem as well as with both of his wives, Leah and Rachel, in the following years. The ten other sons are envious of Joseph, the special son of Rachel; as a result, they plot to sell him as a slave.
As both of the tales above show clearly, God's goal was for a normal and exclusive sexual connection between a man and a woman. The use of a surrogate mother resulted in the disintegration of the families and the emergence of abnormality in general. The common message was that not trusting God and instead putting matters into one's own hands might result in anarchy on the planet.
Noel Keane, an attorney, was instrumental in facilitating the first ever legal surrogacy contract in history in 1975. According to the terms of the arrangement, the surrogate mother did not get any remuneration in this case. Following this, Keane founded his own infertility center, which was responsible for a large number of surrogate pregnancies in the United States. Louise Brown was the first person to be born as a result of in-vitro fertilizations when she was born in 1978. IVF was also used to create her younger sister, Natalie Brown, who was born four years later and became the world's forty-first kid to be conceived in this manner.
When Natalie gave birth without the use of IVF in May 1999, she became the first person born after conception via IVF to do so. Dr. Subhas Mukhopadhyay of India created the world's second test tube baby, named Durga, just a few months after the birth of Louise Brown in the United States. He was, however, barred from working on in-vitro fertilizations any longer and was moved to another section of the company. In addition, he was denied permission to go to Tokyo to give a paper. Mukhopadhyay committed himself on June 19, 1981, as a result of his dissatisfaction and deteriorating health.
According to scientific documents, 'Harsha' was born on August 16, 1986, and is considered to be India's first human test-tube baby. This accomplishment was attributed to T.C. Anand Kumar, Director of the Institute for Research in Reproduction (IRR) of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). When he travelled to Kolkata to attend a Science Congress in 1997, he was presented with all of Mukhopadhyay's research papers, which he took with him. Following a thorough examination of the papers and conversations with Durga's parents, he became certain that Mukhopadhyay was the person responsible for the birth of India's first human test-tube baby.
Mukhopadhyay was recognised as the creator of the first Indian test tube baby in a paper connected to the topic of artificial intercourse in the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) thanks to the efforts of T.E. Anand Kumar.
The first surrogacy agreement, which included remuneration, was signed between a surrogate and the intended parents in 1980. Elizabeth Kane (a pseudonym) was compensated $10,000 for carrying the couple's child to term. Despite the fact that she had completed her family and had put a kid for adoption, Kane was unprepared for the difficulties she would encounter after the birth of her child, as well as the emotions that would accompany the whole process. Afterwards, she expressed remorse for her choice to be a surrogate mother and wrote about her experiences in a book titled Birth Mother.
Surrogacy from the Indian Point of View:
As a result of long-term relaxation of any legal structure, restrictions, and regulation, India has emerged as a global hub for surrogacy for worldwide deliberate parents. This is because India first legalized commercial surrogacy in 2002 and has grown in popularity as a global hub for surrogacy for worldwide deliberate parents as a result of the relaxation of any legal structure, restrictions, and regulation for a long time, which ensures a legally simple route to parenthood for them.
In addition to these advantages, favorable foreign currency rates make Indian surrogacy a cost-effective option. Although surrogacy became legally permissible in India in 2002, it was structured under guidelines published by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which were rudimentary and devoid of any legislative backing. It was the same as if there were no rules at all.
The women who agreed to serve as surrogates were exposed to inhumane and unscrupulous treatment, as well as an unpleasant atmosphere, terrible living circumstances, and exploitation in the process. When the surrogacy companies in India got huge invoices from the intended parents, they only reimbursed a portion of the surrogate mother's costs, which was a small portion of the total amount.
These women were forced back into the industry by poverty and illiteracy, and they continued to be exploited as baby-making machines by these organizations for the sake of profit, which resulted in their physical and mental health being in poor condition. Recently, there have been many irregularities committed in this company, as well as the continuation of a money-making scam in the name of a baby.
Baby Manji Yamada v/s Union of India & Anr. WP (C) NO. 369 OF 2008, in which a Japanese couple opted for surrogacy through an Indian origin mother, and the baby was born in Anand, Gujarat, which is known as the cradle of the world, was brought before the Supreme Court of India to address the absence of surrogacy legislation in the country. In the month before the baby's birth, the couple divorced, and the woman abandoned the child, who was biologically linked to the father.
The surrogate mother refused to take the child into her own arms. The biological father, Ikufumi Yamada, wanted to bring the kid back to Japan, but the court denied him custody, and the Japanese government refused to allow him to do so since the infant did not have either Japanese or Indian nationality, thus he was unable to do so. A directive from India's highest court was followed by a humanitarian visa being granted to the baby by the Japanese government, which was then followed by the Indian government issuing a travel certificate to the baby's grandmother on her son's behalf, and the child was allowed to leave the country with her grandmother. As a result of this judgment, commercial surrogacy became lawful in India, and it was reaffirmed in Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality L.P.A No. 2151 of 2009, which further showed that commercial surrogacy was allowed in India since there was no legislation banning it.
According to a study published by the Centre for Social Research (CSR), a non-governmental organization (NGO) that deals with women's issues, in 2014, 88 percent of surrogate mothers in Delhi and 76 percent in Mumbai stated that they were not familiar with the terms and conditions of the contract, and that there were more than 2,000 surrogacy clinics operating in India without any registration or authorization at the time.
In India, the surrogacy industry has been criticised by women's rights organizations, which claim that fertility clinics are baby factories for the wealthy, and that widespread illiteracy leads to poor and uneducated women signing contracts that they do not fully understand, thereby exposing them to exploitation.
Exploration of fertility in India:
Surrogacy for commercial purposes became legal in India in 2002. The Kaival Hospital in Anand, Gujarat, used to have a clinic that acquainted infertile couples with local women, cared for the women and provided assurance during the pregnancy, and even provided counselling and support after the birth of a child. Women who are accustomed to carrying babies for couples from a variety of countries, including the United States, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom.
This was referred to as the phenomenon of wombs for rent. In recent years, India has emerged as a major hub for commercial surrogacy for cosmopolitan parents, thanks to the availability of a large labour force and a high-quality medical facility at a reasonable cost.
Dr. Patel's centre was praised for being one of a kind because it provided a variety of services. Instead of having to bring in their own surrogate, the Anand Gujarat clinic only requires the parents to provide their egg and sperm. The surrogate is chosen from a waiting list of tested and ready surrogates.
An acclimation group of surrogate mothers who lived in a home rented by the clinic under the supervision of a former surrogate mother was formed. At night, they would be occupied with English or computer classes, and during the day, they would receive visits from their husbands and children. They both signed a contract in which the couple agreed to pay for all medical expenses incurred by the surrogate woman on top of her remuneration. It was also stated that the surrogate mother would be responsible for handing over the baby after it was born.
The couples travelled to Anand, Gujarat for the IVF procedure and again for the delivery. Most couples ended up reimbursing the clinic less than $US10000 for the whole process, including fertilizations, the cost to the mother and medical expenditures. Counselling up until then was a significant component of the process. The surrogate mothers would be taught to believe and think of the pregnancy as 'somebody's kid coming to stay at their home for nine months'. According to Dr. Patel, although none of the surrogate moms had a difficult pregnancy or any medical problems; the clinic was diligent in its medical studies and does not take any chances.
However, this approach was criticized on numerous reasons. Critics claimed that the surrogate mothers were frequently exploited as they were forced to go through the efforts of pregnancy for very little monetary advantages. An argument against this disparagement was that this practice benefited both the parties-it provided one party the opportunity to have their own kid and the other to receive an amount of monetary advantage which they may not have been able to achieve otherwise. From a liberal point of view, it might be claimed that it concluded the woman's right to sovereignty over her body which also included informed permission to give her body for any activity or purpose whether it was physical labor, sexual services, organ or tissue donation, or commercial surrogacy.
While in a low-income country such as India, where these surrogate women were mostly from poor families and backgrounds and were not fully aware of their rights, it was analytically recognized that their consent was based on a sense of desperation and helplessness as a result of their financial and educational backwardness, and that this consent could also result in ill treatment. The physiological consequences of pregnancy, such as migraines and back pain, diabetes, high blood pressure, or permanently impaired fertility, as well as death in extreme cases, were also a consideration. There was also a risk of the surrogate mother becoming emotionally attached to the child, which could have occurred.
Scarring and body pain from caesarean sections were found during the postpartum examination, as well as signs of postpartum depression. Furthermore, there was the possibility of condemnation from their communities as well as rejection by their husbands if they did not comply. Because these types of risks were infrequently articulated when the consent of the surrogate mother was obtained, it was debatable whether or not the consent was given with full knowledge of the risks.
According to one common point of contention against medical tourism from an economic standpoint, the traveller spent his or her money in a foreign country rather than in the traveller's home jurisdiction. Both medical and travel expenses were incurred by the group members in question. As a result, the home country suffered a significant loss of income as a result of this enormous sum.
For a developing country like India, the potential financial benefits of participating in this lucrative industry were mind-boggling to contemplate. However, while it was Indian citizens who contributed to the development of medical resources and infrastructure, it was foreign patronage that reaped the benefits of these efforts. That those who pay taxes within the country should be the ones who benefit from the efforts of doctors whose medical education and infrastructural facilities were supported by taxpayer dollars was one of the most common criticisms levelled against medical tourism.
In response to the criticisms stated above, the Indian government decided to outlaw commercial surrogacy in the year 2013, effective immediately.
Surrogacy: What it is and how it works?
In this process, a couple, typically a husband and wife, enters into a comprehensive contract with a surrogate woman. According to the terms and circumstances of the contract, the expectant surrogate mother is inseminated, bears the baby, and gives up all rights to the male sperm donor and his wife in relation to the child. In exchange for bearing the child, the surrogate mother receives a monetary compensation.
The case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality and Others S.C.A No.3020 of 2008 is instructive in that the surrogacy arrangement was entered into in the names of the intending father and the second respondent, the surrogate mother whose name is listed as designated father's wife, which resulted in vexatious legal matters concerning the subject of the surrogate child's birth certificate, which was ultimately resolved in favour of the intending father.
It implies that the person who supplied the sperm for IVF retains exclusive custody of the child, and the child will be adopted by the individual's spouse. It is also stated in the court orders that are made prior to the birth of the child, as the person is identified as the child's father. Forms of permission, on the other hand, are often signed after the baby is born, to provide the surrogate woman time to make up her mind.
In an embryo transfer case, the court-provided pre-birth comprehensive papers identify the couple as the biological parents of the new born infant, thus establishing their parental rights. Their names and contact information are included on the birth certificate, and the surrogate mother makes no claim to the child.
Large numbers of couples have benefitted greatly from the surrogacy procedure or may have contemplated adopting a child via this method in the past. Because of the increased usage of the procedure, it is particularly important to examine whether or not the agreement is lawful in its current form. The sale of the infant may result in a violation of criminal laws, which would raise questions about its legality.
The agreement with the surrogate mother includes provisions for dealing with issues such as whether adoption is a good fit and if the kid is legitimate. As a result of such an agreement, the law would control the parties, balancing specific parties' rights against their duties.
Surrogate Mother's Legal Rights:
However, it is possible that the growth is masking growing concerns about the rights of women who choose to be surrogate mothers, the majority of whom come from impoverished households with little financial resources and are frequently uneducated. Surrogate moms are from low-income households and are not well informed about their legal obligations. Surrogacy advertising and publicity have also sparked worries about the illicit market and child trafficking, which have resulted in vulnerable women being transformed into baby suppliers as a result of the publicity and advertising.
Specifically, the ladies are chosen for their ability to serve as carrier surrogate moms or egg donors. In India, they are selected based on factors such as appearance, compliance, and financial reliance on the government. In the commercial surrogacy industry, the process of pregnancy has been devolved into a business, and the baby has been reduced to the status of a commodity.
People frequently specify criteria for having a kid in the same way as they would for any other consumer product, as if they were buying a product. People who take on the position of surrogate mother are often from a lower-middle-class background, with a special emphasis on those who are in financial need.
Surrogate mothers are exploited in India, and commercial firms and agents take nearly all of the monetary gains as a result of the country's lack of invariabilities laws and regulations. The whole surrogacy programme is transparent from beginning to end. The amount of money that the surrogate mother receives is very restricted.
For a surrogate mother, the situation is very challenging. Women of pastoral ancestry are forced into becoming surrogate mothers so that their husbands may profit financially from the arrangement. Those who fall into this category have no right to make decisions about their bodies or about their lives. In certain instances, the negotiating party establishes conditions for the pregnant surrogate lady, such as the need that she remain in a specific location for eight months if she is receiving prenatal care as a mitigation.
In such cases, surrogate mothers are moved to hostels under the pretense of receiving antepartum care for the duration of the pregnancy, which is not the case. The actual goal is to protect and reassure her, as well as to avoid the social shame associated with being an outsider in one's society. These surrogate mothers spend the whole of their pregnancy worrying about their homes and their children as well.
They are only allowed to go outdoors for antepartum visits, and they are only allowed to contact with their relatives on Sundays, according to the rules. The worst part is that they are unable to be paid in the case of negative pregnancy outcomes, and they are not provided with any monetary benefits or post-pregnancy medical and psychological treatment.
Due to the fact that they must live away from their home, this is a disaster for them. In the majority of surrogacy contracts, once the baby is delivered, the surrogate mother who carried the baby agrees to relinquish all parental rights to the child and the contract ends. The surrogate mother has the right, as a result of her surrogacy duty, to be fairly and adequately paid for all of her medical and other expenses, so long as they are directly related to the pregnancy in question.
Some extra medical expenses are often protected because if they are not properly addressed in a fair amount of time, certain issues may arise that may have an effect on the infant. The surrogate mother has the right to receive medical advice throughout the course of her pregnancy and beyond, beginning with the first stages of her consideration of surrogacy. Her participation in the treatment will be required, as would that of the prospective parents.
Surrogate Children's Rights:
Concerning children's rights, there are additional issues to consider. The rights of children are inadequate. Having the baby given to you after birth may have a negative impact on nursing. Unlike biological children, children born via surrogacy do not get to meet their surrogate moms.
What is the legal position on surrogacy?
According to the Surrogacy Act, the couple seeking surrogacy must be a close relative of the person who they want to be the surrogate mother in order to be considered. The law, on the other hand, does not specify who will be considered near relations. The creation of a National Surrogacy Board is contemplated under the Act in order to ensure that the rules and regulations are administered in a uniform manner. These authorities are appointed and sustained by this Board, which also confers upon them the authority and competence to regulate and oversee surrogate activities.
The Act now mandates that both the couple seeking surrogacy and the surrogate mother who is willing to provide it obtain eligibility certifications, which must be issued by appropriate and competent authorities. Foreigners and Non-Resident Indians are subject to the most stringent restrictions under this Act (NRIs). It is no longer possible for them to pursue surrogacy in the country. This was done after a number of instances of baby abandonment and child trafficking were discovered and investigated. This omission has been the source of many disputes, all of which have revolved around the issue of whether the restriction imposed was properly thought through.
However, since same-sex couples do not come within the scope of this Act, the concept of equal rights for the LGBTQ+ community is dampened, as is the idea of equal rights for all people. NCP leader Supriya Sule said that the law was excellent, but it was not up to date with today's technology. Individuals who are in partnerships other than conventional monogamous marriages are subject to the same restrictions.
Thus, not only gays but even single parents and couples living together have been excluded from the scope of this Act. In India, they are unable to seek surrogate pregnancy. The couple wishing to use a surrogate must have been married for at least five years and must have obtained a competent certified doctor's certificate confirming their infertility before proceeding with the procedure.
Couples who already have children are also subject to a further restriction. In India, it is not allowed for childbearing couples to obtain surrogacy services. Such couples, on the other hand, are eligible to adopt children under current legislation.
Additional requirements apply to the surrogate mother, including the following:
- The surrogate mother should be married to the surrogate father
- Prior to the surrogacy offer, she must have had a kid.
- She must also be between the ages of 25 and 35 years old.
- The surrogate mother will only be permitted to use her services once.
- The Act also prohibits any monetary transaction between the surrogate mother and the intended parents.
- This Act has been seen and condemned as more of a ban than a regulation on a number of occasions.
Surrogacy Poses a Number of Challenges:
In addition to the issues already stated, one of the most pressing issues that must be addressed is the issue of financial security for the mother who is serving as a surrogate.
In countries where commercial surrogacy is permitted, such as India, Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Thailand, and a few states in the United States of America, there are legislations in place that provide some relief (relief) to the surrogate mother. However, as has been reported in the media, it is more often than not the case that both the deliberated parents and the surrogate mother are exploited in the name of benefaction. When this occurs, the laws and standards that have been put in place are ineffectively enforced.
One other problem that is causing tension is the subject of the kid who was delivered via surrogate motherhood. A lot has been written about the case of the Israeli couple who had difficulty proving paternity of their kid, as well as the story of the German couple who had to fight a long court struggle to get citizenship for their Indian surrogate child, in both Indian and international media.
In the United States of America, mandatory testing in terms of psychological and health criteria is practiced; however, Indian laws focus only on the infectious disease's aspect of the matter, failing to take into consideration the impact of psychological health on the consecutive intended parents as well as the surrogate.
The exploitation of surrogates is widespread, with many women from low socioeconomic strata being drawn to, engaged with, and enticed into surrogacy with the promise of quick monetary gain. These women are often left high and dry, with the delegates and ART clinics collecting the lion's share of the money and providing no post-delivery care, as required by Indian regulations and standards.
The two scenarios: the Indian scenario and the international scenario
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), in the year 2005, developed and created a set of rules that must be adhered to by any and all people or organizations involved in the area of supported and assisted reproductive methods, as well as surrogacy.
It outlined precise procedures to be followed throughout the surrogacy process, and it also stated explicitly that gestational surrogacy is the recognized modality to be followed in a commercial sense in India. There were extensive procedures in place for the certification and recognition of ART clinics in the nation, and state and district level forums were established to oversee the performance of these clinics as well.
Following that, the Assisted Reproductive Techniques Bill was drafted, although it has not yet been put into effect in the nation. It was based on the recommendations that were stated in the bulletin by the International Commission on Medical Research (ICMR); nevertheless, just as it was the case with the ICMR guidelines, it is also the case with the proposed law. However, although there were many problems that were handled and properly and appropriately regulated, there is still room for improvement.
In the absence of a single point of redress mechanism created or planned to be implemented by the legislation, a surrogate mother or the intended parents may attempt to resolve their grievances via alternative means. Several factors, such as age, number of embryo implantations, blood transfusions, and other factors were listed in the proposed legislation for the surrogate, but there was no discussion of whether precise demographic requirements should be established for the intended parents or not.
Despite the fact that the act does not distinguish between caste, creed or other factors, the authors believe that a minimum standard of care must be exercised to ensure that the purposeful parents are genuine and not criminal rudiments, that they are stable and can support a new member in their family, and that the new house treats babies fairly and without discrimination.
This is a lengthy procedure that should be carried out in a way similar to that which is followed in western nations, where parents of adopted children are exposed to replicative, but non-intrusive, verification of the wellbeing of their kid. In India, the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) programme, which was launched by the government, may help to accomplish this goal.
In addition, the The Delhi Artificial Insemination (Human) Bill 1995 is a piece of legislation that ought to be mentioned. Which, although being productive only in the state, was originally developed to restrict the proliferation of different ART clinics across the state. It has also been recouped as a result of the ICMR recommendations.
According to the comprehensive rules, there will be no disciplinary action taken against physicians who commit misconduct in clinics. The Indian Medical Council (MCI) and the State Medical Councils are in charge of dealing with the issue, which falls within their jurisdiction (SMC).
A legally valid contract between the intended parents and the surrogate mother is deemed to have been formed under the Indian Contracts Act 1872, and the surrogate mother relinquishes all rights to the child as part of the agreement.
In the U.S., the situation is similar in a few states where, through contested cases, it has been kept in a position comparable to Indian legislation where the surrogate mother gives up all rights to the kid. However, the situation is different in the UK, where the mother may claim the infant up to 2 years after birth, and it is the court's discretion to approve this.
However, due to the US adopting federal government structure, the laws are not centrally consolidated. The U.S. state of California recognizes the act of commercial surrogacy, whereas Washington State considers commercial surrogacy undesirable. Traditional surrogacy is permitted in the State of California, however in this instance the biological mother remains the legal mother, whereas traditional surrogacy is not legally recognized in the UK and India.
Traditional surrogacy is banned in Utah State, United States of America, and it is a requirement that at least one intended parent must supply one gamete in gestational surrogacy. The U.S. state of Virginia does not register the intended parents as legal parents on the baby's birth, but instead needs a legal procedure to alter the parents name once both previous and surrogacy consent is obtained.
In another US State, New York State, any and all surrogacy arrangements including remuneration of any sort are deemed invalid and unenforceable, comparable to UK regulations and opposed to India's proposed law.
The Surrogacy Laws in India:
A silently operating booming industry in India, which, according to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), generates more than $2 billion per year, but in response to all of these unregulated tactics and to pave the way for a safe and legalized passage for all parties involved, the Supreme Court directed that a statute be established as soon as possible, taking into consideration the enormous scale of the industry.
Even the Indian Legislation Commission, in its 228th Report, which was presented on the 5th of August, 2009, said that a suitable law governing surrogacy in the nation was urgently required. The title of the report was Need for Legislation to Regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinics as well as Rights and Obligations of Parties to a Surrogacy, and the report was written by a group of lawyers.
The Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill, 2008, was drafted by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), which falls under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It has been amended several times by the Ministry of Law and Justice, including in 2010, 2013, and 2016, but the legislation has been amended and proposed numerous times but has never been passed.
However, in 2013, surrogacy by foreign heterosexual couples and single parents was outlawed, and in 2015, commercial surrogacy for foreign nationals was outlawed as well, with the entrance of embryos for research reasons being the sole reason for their admission. Shortly after, in 2016, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Law, 2016 was presented and approved by the Lok Sabha, recommending that altruistic, domestic surrogacy be legalized. However, the bill was unable to be implemented because of the adjournment of the Parliamentary session.
The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2019 is a reintroduction of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016, which failed to pass through both chambers of parliament. This bill was presented in the Lok Sabha on July 15, 2019, and it was approved on August 5, 2019, according to the Lok Sabha website. On the 21st of November, the Rajya Sabha passed a resolution referring the Bill to a Selected Committee for further consideration and consultation.
The committee's report was submitted on the 5th of February, in the year 2020. After taking into consideration the ideas from the various stakeholders, the chosen committee came up with a total of 15 (fifteen) recommendations that would be included into the 2020 legislation. A revised version of the draught law enacted by the Lok Sabha in August 2019 was introduced as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020, which was approved by the Cabinet after all 15 suggestions of the select committee were accepted.
The Amendments to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020:
There are many important and historic improvements brought in by this 2020 law, which include:
The Bill fully restrains commercial surrogacy and only permits altruistic surrogacy, meaning that the surrogate mother would not get any financial compensation and rewards for her pregnancy, save for the minimum medical cost and insurance coverage. Commercial surrogacy will be banned, consisting of the selling and acquisition of human embryos and gametes.
The current law also removes the concept of 'infertility' which was formerly defined as the inability to conceive after five years of unprotected sexual intercourse. The select committee was of the opinion that 5 (five) years is too lengthy a time for a couple to wait for a baby and viewed it as unreasonable and against the purposes of the Act.
The Bill permits surrogacy to Indian married (Heterosexual) couples (between 23 to 50 years for woman and 26 to 55 years for husband) and extends the applicability to cover Indian origin Married Couples, and Indian Single Woman (only widows and divorcees in the age range between 35 and 45 years).
The planned Insurance cover for surrogate moms has been increased from 16 months to 36 months, to offset the significant risks of medical problems even after pregnancy.
Before proceeding with surrogacy, the couple must acquire a Certificate of Essentiality as well as a Certificate of Eligibility (based on confirmed infertility) from the appropriate authorities. It further states that intended partners should not, under any circumstances, leave their new born child as a result of a surrogacy arrangement. During the adoption procedure, the new born infant will be entitled to all of the rights and privileges that are accessible to a natural child, and there will be no choosing of gender.
The law also governs the operation of surrogacy clinics by requiring them to register with the appropriate and relevant authorities on a necessary and compulsory basis.
The law defines commercial surrogacy as the practice of undertaking or advertising for commercial surrogacy, importing or selling human embryos for surrogacy, exploiting the surrogating mother or the surrogate child, and abandoning the kid as crimes. Prison sentences of up to 10 lakh rupees and fines of up to ten years would be imposed for such crimes, as would be the penalties and punishments.
A National surrogacy board (NSB) and State surrogacy boards (SSB) would be established, with its primary functions being to advise the government on policy issues and to supervise the operation of surrogacy clinics, according to the proposed legislation.
Surrogacy Agreements and the Bill's Effect:
Since the Bill has established rigid regulatory procedures, analysing the legality of surrogacy contracts is essential. Surrogacy contracts play a vital part in surrogacy. Without a surrogacy contract, regulating the procedure becomes extremely difficult since it may lead to a lot of legal problems. The main aim of surrogacy contracts is to equally safeguard surrogate moms, intended parents, and infant.
Financial and legal issues are covered by such contracts.
Surrogacy contracts pose 3 (three) contradictory questions:
- Do surrogacy contracts mean selling infants?
- Whether surrogacy contracts are banned by any legislation or not?
- Is a surrogacy contract illegal instead of Section (24) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
The most contentious topic in surrogacy contracts is whether such arrangements amount to selling infants. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020, put an end to all such speculations by attempting to introduce a blanket prohibition on commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy advocates believe that a woman has the right to propagate and may seek remuneration during gestation. Such an argument, however, is unlawful in law since commercial surrogacy arrangements disregard and weaken the rights of surrogate mothers.
In the instance of Baby M, the court found it extremely difficult to comprehend consent in surrogacy situations. The surrogate mother would establish strong connection to a kid that may lead to alterations in the baby's desire to separate. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2020 therefore takes this aspect into account and stipulates that a baby born through surrogacy will be considered the biological child of the intending couple or mother.
Another question that arose was whether any law prohibits surrogacy contracts or opposes public policy. In some circumstances, courts may reject a public-policy considerations contract. Many opponents claim that altruistic surrogacy in itself is an unethical contract, since it is against the child's interests. The Supreme Court interpreted Section (23) of Indian Contracts Act 1872 to public interest or benefit agreements.
However, establishing a real connection between allowing surrogacy and public interest is extremely difficult, and in such instances public policy does not fit in. Indian courts have supported all kinds of surrogacy contracts and recognized reproductive rights as part of the privacy right.
In the case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality L.P.A No. 2151 of 2009, the Gujarat High Court held that while rules and regulations are required to protect the rights of a surrogate mother, guardianship, fertility clinic responsibilities, etc., the legal position remains the same, i.e., public welfare and policy does not affect the enforceability of surrogacy contracts. The 2020 Bill aims to address these voids by substantiating surrogacy laws.
Furthermore, it cannot be argued that the purpose of surrogacy contracts is contrary to the legislation in place of section 24 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872 because section 35 of the 2020 Bill expressly bans commercial surrogacy, exploitation of surrogate women and infants born through surrogacy. It castigates the same. Therefore, the 2020 Bill has guaranteed that surrogacy contracts remain intact. The safeguards were also allocated to regulatory agencies.
Taking the Judicial Approach:
The past two decades has witnessed an exponential growth in surrogacy. The 2020 Bill was intended to properly regulate surrogacy, limit commercial surrogacy and enable ethical surrogacy. To be widely accepted among the people, every Bill must pass The Golden Triangle Test.
Fundamental rights are enforceable by every Indian citizen regardless of birthplace, caste, ethnicity, creed, or gender. Among all the articles regulating fundamental rights, Articles 14, 19 and 21 are called the 'Golden Triangle' of the Indian Constitution.
Some Bill sections, however, do not comply with constitutional requirements. A deeper examination shows that the Bill fails to pass the 'Golden Triangle Test' established by India's Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present section highlights Bill 2020's constitutional legitimacy.
Article 14:
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution ensures 'equality before law and equal protection of laws for all citizens.' It bans class laws but allows reasonable categorization. The Hon'ble Supreme Court established two criteria to satisfy the requirement of reasonable categorization, i.e., comprehensible differential and rational nexus.
Furthermore, in the case of E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 1974 AIR 555, 1974 SCR (2) 348, the conventional notion of equality was extended where it was ruled that equality is a dynamic concept and its dimensions cannot be cribbed, cabineted and limited to old doctrinary limits. If the categorization is not based on intelligible distinction and has no connection with the intended item, the differentiation is deemed invalid.
Recently, India's Supreme Court overturned section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., decriminalizing consensual sexual encounters between two adult people of any sexuality. The Bill, however, goes against this decision. It rejects Homosexual Couples rights to commission a kid and refuses to recognize these couples as legitimate.
Moreover, in the landmark decision of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438, the Supreme Court of India recognized Transgender as third gender. But 2020, Bill is quiet on giving the Third Genders equal rights. The reasons of the Bill are extremely limited, invalidating same-sex couples and Transgender from contracting surrogacy.
There is no logical connection to enable altruistic surrogacy to married, widowed, or divorced Indian nationals with the purpose of the Bill. A deeper examination of 2020, Bill shows that marriage-based categorization is not acceptable under Article 14 of India's Constitution.
Moreover, if single parents, i.e., non-married persons, are permitted to adopt children. Bill 2020 aims to prohibit abuse of this technique and safeguard women from exploitation. Domestic surrogacy process, however, may be a hotspot for corruption and fraud.
Article 19:
Such Article of India's Constitution allows for freedom of trade and profession. Article 19(6) establishes the basis for limiting such right reasonably. Apparently, however, the 2020 Bill portrays itself in the public interest, an in-depth examination shows that it does not.
In Chintaman Rao v/s State of Madhya Pradesh 1950 SCR 759, the Supreme Court ruled that 'fair limitation' should not be arbitrary and disproportionate. It was also ruled that a fair balance must exist between the freedom given and the limitation imposed.
The Apex Court ruled that a complete prohibition on bar dancing is unconstitutional because many women would then have to take up odd occupations to live. Similarly, a prohibition on commercial surrogacy would violate Article 19(1) (g). The subterranean surrogacy danger also hides as a consequence of the blanket prohibition.
Article 21:
The Supreme Court of India ruled that the right to life as entrenched in Article 21 of the Constitution also encompasses the 'right to livelihood' in the leading decision of the Indian Consumer Education and Research Center and Ors. V. Union 1995 SCC (3) 42. The identical concept was earlier recognised in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51. However, by imposing a blanket prohibition on commercial surrogacy, the 2020 Bill likely to violate the right to livelihood since impoverished women are urgently anxious to earn money to meet ends.
It also affects women who wish to achieve some sort of financial independence or security for themselves and their family by consenting to be surrogates instead of monetary remuneration.
Furthermore, in the case of Devika Biswas v. Union of India (2016) 10 SCC 726, the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognized the right to reproduction under Article 21 is an essential component of 'right to life.' A woman's reproductive rights encompass carrying a baby, giving birth, and raising children. Privacy, dignity and integrity rights are also implicated.
In the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264, the learned judge, after referring to Kharak Singh and American decisions, stated the law as follows: - Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacy of the home, family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.
Thus, denying surrogacy rights to individuals belonging to the LGBTQ community, single persons, elderly couples and limiting them to heterosexual couples, widows and divorce women of a certain age contradicts the basic right to life under Article 21 of the former.
Recently, in historic judgement of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 the Supreme Court ruled that a person's privacy extends to his/her own liberty of mind, body and other choices. The Apex Court also examined the case of B. K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2000 (1) ALD 199, where the Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that State intervention in procreation amounted to a direct infringement of one's right to privacy.
Therefore, given that reproduction or procreation is a highly personal and private choice and must be respected, the 2020 Bill must guarantee minimal state involvement in such a decision-making process. On many accounts, the government has failed to explain why unmarried and childless women cannot become surrogate mothers. A woman alone should have the right to determine her body, fertility, and parenting choices. The 2020 Bill therefore partly linked with the right to livelihood, privacy and reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Looking at the aforementioned precedents and rationale, it may be determined that the 2020 Bill does not pass the Golden Triangle Test. It must be kept in mind that in India, surrogacy is not simply another industry, it is the main source of income for economically devastated women. It is also a major source of income for individuals at surrogacy clinics.
Therefore, the 2020 Bill must not endanger all parties engaged in the process. It must be changed to achieve a proper balance between its requirements and people' rights. The Bill as a whole is not wrong; it requires modest changes to become a comprehensive piece of law.
Exploring Potential Loopholes and Offering Recommendations:
The goal of law in a community is to preserve people's freedom, in addition to acting as a tool for distributing positive entitlements. In order to fulfil its responsibilities, legislation must keep pace with emerging technology in order to reach the poor. The 2020 Bill places a total prohibition on commercial surrogacy, allowing only altruistic surrogacy.
It appears, however, that this tread wasn't fully noticed. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes an appealing option for parties. That's because it gives the impoverished surrogate mother financial security and also involves foreign currency investment.
India confronts the serious issue of poverty, and with the introduction of surrogacy in the nation, impoverished women engage in such processes. Therefore, a halfway must be reached that allows commercial surrogacy, but in a better and adequate regulated manner. Prices must be set by the proper authorities, and negotiating should not be allowed.
Despite the fact that the Bill encourages altruistic surrogacy, it also has the potential to encourage black marketing and corruption, as well as a covert surrogacy process. In the case of altruistic contracts, the gestational carrier may suffer more out-of-pocket expenses, and the intended parents may also incur additional expenses as a result of misinformation or other aberrations.
It has not been addressed in any way by the 2020 legislation. It entirely relies on the assumption that altruistic surrogate mothers are not exploited, completely ignoring the reality that unpaid surrogacy is likewise an exploitative practice. Furthermore, the 2020 Bill anticipates that a surrogate mother will go through the whole surrogacy procedure out of sympathy for the intended parents.
Ironically, the so-called altruistic model encourages the use of forced labour. As a result, the idea of compensatory surrogacy must be established in order to address this problem. This will compensate the surrogate mother for the losses she has experienced in terms of income, sufferings, health, and, ultimately, death, among other things, and as a result, the phrase altruistic surrogacy should be substituted with the term compensatory surrogacy.
The 2020 Bill recommends that the parties get a Certificate of Eligibility before to beginning the surrogacy procedure in order to ensure that the process is compliant with the law. But it doesn't say anything about how long certificates must be valid before they are revoked.
In a similar vein, the Bill allows for the permission of the competent authorities and the agreement of the surrogate mother for an abortion, but it makes no mention of the consent of the intended parents. It opens up a loophole that may be exploited severely and intensively, and surrogate moms may be able to take use of it.
Due to the fact that surrogacy is more of a personal decision than a commercial duty, such loopholes should not be permitted since they may result in a violation in the regulatory system, which can result in serious conflicts between the parties involved in the process. Furthermore, it must be guaranteed that a woman medical practitioner is appointed to work in fertility clinics on a full-time basis at the district and state levels at the federal and state levels.
A clause of this kind would guarantee the trust of both parties engaged in the transaction. As a result, in order to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill, such unconventional measures must be put in place. Because of widespread and far-reaching issues such as poverty and unemployment, women who work for a living are more than willing to take the role of surrogate mother in order to help others. The situation is so dire that women are considering alternatives to the notion of renting their wombs in order to provide for their families.
The surrogate mother's income loss during pregnancy is not reimbursed, however, since there is no provision in the Bill that specifically addresses this issue. Compensation that is appropriate and equitable for the surrogate mother must be provided, and the process must be controlled by the government itself. Surrogacy also raises the issue of forced labour, which is a concern. First and foremost, it always concerns the fundamental existence of human people, their bodies, and their sense of self-identification. Second, the majority of people rely on manual labour for their subsistence. Because of this reliance, some people are at a competitive disadvantage in relation to the buyer of their labour.
A counselling section should be included in every Reproductive Medical Clinic, as a precaution against the use of forced labour. This should be emphasized in light of the problem of forced labour. There is potential for this to be an effective and useful technique for determining the mental state of the surrogate method participants. Fair and impartial disclosure of the whole surrogacy procedure, as well as the dangers and hazards connected with it, must be given to the surrogate mother before she agrees to participate. In addition, any unanticipated circumstances of divorce between the intended couple, as well as any break between them, must be taken into consideration.
In spite of the fact that it is impossible to anticipate such circumstances, the Bill must contain clear and explicit rules addressing the duties and roles of intending couples and surrogate mothers in the event that surrogate infants are abandoned by their intended parents. Consequently, high standards of care, informed consent, and recompense for all those engaged in the provision of Reproductive Services in India must be ensured by the law.
Surrogacy is considered to be a component of Assisted Reproductive Technology (hence referred to as 'ART'). The Surrogacy Bill must be controlled with the ART Bill. Both the Bills are intimately interwoven because ART Bill specifies the method, the techniques, and the developing technology of reproductive medicine in surrogacy while the Surrogacy Bill deals with the consequences and the legal ethical problems resulting from such agreements.
Some people are concerned about the possibility of introducing the ART Bill before the Surrogacy Bill. The ART Bill provides a complete framework and because it does not impact on surrogacy, the government must guarantee that there is greater synchronization between both the Bills. Hence, the Surrogacy Bill shall come into effect only after the passage of the ART Bill. The ART Bill, the Surrogacy Bill, the modification to the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, and the older Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act together constitute the regulatory authority and safeguard the Reproductive Rights and choices of surrogate mothers in India.
Since surrogacy is a socially and culturally sensitive issue in India, no loopholes regarding the same must exist. It also has significant and deep psychological consequences and is a severe issue of privacy. Therefore, the appropriate authorities must be open to ideas and suggestions to serve the best interests of the parties.
Conclusion:
People's lives have been drastically altered by the advent of science and modern technologies. Read more about it here. It has also brought forth difficulties and issues that were previously unheard of, which is a mixed blessing. The study of biotechnology has assisted us in the discovery of sex determination methods as well as other scientific advances such as DNA testing, fingerprinting, and other technologies that have made it easier to administer justice.
The recent advancements in the area of embryonic stem cells have had a significant impact on human existence in a variety of ways. Furthermore, the notion of motherhood has been broadened and redefined to encompass genetic mothers, surrogate mothers, biological mothers, and social mothers, among other things. In the area of Reproductive Technologies, there has been a remarkable transformation during the last three decades. Techniques such as donor insemination, in-vitro fertilizations, and embryo transfer procedures have been developed by the field of reproductive medical sciences, and they have totally changed and revolutionized the environment in which women reproduce.
Many families have spared a great deal of sorrow as a result of the scientific technology answer, and this solution has turned out to be a godsend for many couples who are now blessed with a child that is descended from their own DNA. Surrogacy has become a need in today's culture as a result of technological advancements. It is the final resort for infertile couples and for people who are unable to produce a biological child of their own. As long as there is a lack of children in the family, surrogacy will continue to be a significant and dominating problem, with significant social and psychological consequences for the families involved.
As a result, surrogacy must be viewed through the prism of fundamental rights. Furthermore, because public policy is a concept that is constantly evolving, the government must enact laws that take into account shifting social patterns as they occur. In terms of social, moral, ethical, legal, and scientific issues, the proposed Bill is a one-of-a-kind and distinct blend. It makes a powerful and determined effort to achieve a balance between the competing interests.
It prohibits commercial surrogacy and establishes penalties for those who do so; however, it is more important to protect the interests of the women who provide a womb for surrogacy first and foremost in this regard. Surrogate mothers must be provided with some form of monetary compensation, which may include the provision of appropriate insurance and the payment of medical expenses, which are borne by the surrogate mother in addition to her physical and mental suffering.
Due to the fact that surrogacy is a financial factor and component, in addition to being a social and emotional factor, this must be completed without fail. Generally speaking, it is regarded as the most important and fundamental factor that has a direct relationship with the right to subsistence. The surrogate mother's reproductive rights must not only be properly safeguarded, but they must also be respected; in addition, she must be provided with a special level of care during her pregnancy.
It is essential to consider the surrogate mother's physical and emotional well-being. Prior to entering into surrogacy agreements or contracts, proactive measures must be made to advise both parties on their legal options. The ART Bill must be passed prior to the Surrogacy Bill in order to improve and amplify the smooth working of both Bills, resulting in a stronger and more effective regulatory system overall.
To summarize, surrogacy is a critically important industry in India, and it is expected to expand at an exponential rate in the next years, according to industry analysts. Due to the fact that it is intimately connected to the social and psychological fabric of society, caution must be used in the process of governing it. For any gaps or loopholes to be avoided, the relevant authorities must go through everything with a fine-tooth comb before proceeding. It is essential that all parties involved in the surrogacy process and procedure receive thorough training and are fully informed of the health and legal issues that surround it.
This includes healthcare providers, infertility clinics, medical tourism companies, as well as the broader tourism industry, the concerned governments, and women who provide surrogacy services. Better regulation of the law may be made possible with the participation of well-informed stakeholders.
Award Winning Article Is Written By: Mr.Yash Patil (Bharati Vidyapeeth New Law College, Pune)
 Authentication No: JL119092404640-09-0721 |
Law Article in India
Legal Question & Answers
Lawyers in India - Search By City
LawArticles
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
Increased Age For Girls Marriage
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
Facade of Social Media
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments