SC issued notice on petition challenging certain provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technique (Regulation) Act, 2021

SC issued notice on petition challenging certain provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technique (Regulation) Act, 2021

The Supreme Court's division bench, led by Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, issued notice on a petition challenging certain provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technique (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Assisted Reproductive Technique (Regulation) Rules, 2022, and directed that it be tagged with another pending plea on a similar issue on January 9. The bench issued a notice of hearing on this writ petition, deciding to hear them all together on January 24. The bench also directed the centre to make a representation to the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board, which was established in December 2022, to consider the petition's prayers and file an appropriate response. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor-General, represented the central government, while Advocate Mohini Priya represented the petitioners.

A Division Bench was hearing a petition filed by over 200 in vitro fertilisation (IVF) specialists from across India alleging that the existing legal regime completely excluded certain categories of people from the purview of the impugned Act, including single women, single men, same-sex couples, and live-in couples, in addition to imposing other 'unscientific and irrational restrictions' such as limiting the number of donations made by an oocyte donor. Such restrictions, it was argued, violated the principle of reproductive autonomy, which has been judicially incorporated into the fundamental right to life under Article 21. The petitioners also emphasised the lack of any provision for monetary compensation for oocyte donors, which they described as a "major oversight" because it failed to account for the donor's time or wage losses as a result of the egg retrieval surgery. Aside from that, the petitioners have questioned the legality of subjecting medical practitioners to the rigours of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and making the offence under Section 33 of the ART Act cognizable.

Case Title: Aniruddha Narayan Malpani v. Union of India & Ors. 
Citation: W.P. (Civil) No. 1129 of 2022

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy