Recently,  the Supreme Court issued a notice to the Centre regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging specific provisions within the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act of 2021 and the Rules outlined in the Assisted Technology (Regulations) Rules of 2022.

The division bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to the Centre in the PIL.

Under the said act, the gamete bank has no authority to provide the sperm or oocyte from a single donor to more than one commissioning couple. The PIL argues that these provisions within the new Act and Rules could potentially lead to a shortage of donor semen samples, subsequently causing an increase in the cost of treatment. This, in turn, might render assisted reproductive techniques financially unfeasible for the general populace.

Further, PIL also points out that before Act came into force, the price per cycle of treatment was close to Rs. 3000/-, but with the new provisions it is predicted to escalate up to 20 to 50 times since one donor can donate only to one couple.

“If this is not struck down, then Vicky Donor becomes illegal,” the Counsel for the petitioner told the Court.

"The PIL argues that the Act's grouping of oocyte (female eggs) and sperm banking is illogical, as both procedures demand distinct skill sets. According to the petitioner, sperm banking is a relatively simple and cost-effective procedure, while oocyte banking is intricate and invasive, necessitating a more extensive setup and expertise. Section 27(3) of the Act and Rule 13(1)(a) of the Rules prohibit a bank from supplying the sperm or oocyte of a single donor to more than one commissioning couple. The PIL asserts that while this limitation may be justified for oocytes, it lacks merit when applied to sperm donation.

Indian Sperm- Bank Association, a registered company founded in 2015 filed a PIL challenging Sections 27(3), 27(6) and 29 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and Rules 13(1)(a), 13(2), 15 and 19 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules on the ground that the said provisions are arbitrary and discriminatory in nature.

Case Title: Indian Sperm- Bank Association V. Union Of India & Ors