The Bombay High Court ruled on Tuesday that a sperm or egg donor does not have legal rights over a child and cannot claim to be its biological parent. The court granted visitation rights to a 42-year-old woman for her five-year-old twin daughters, who were born through surrogacy.

The woman had requested these rights as her daughters were living with her husband and her younger sister, who was the egg donor.

The petitioner’s husband argued that his sister-in-law, who was the egg donor, had a legitimate claim to be considered a biological parent of the twins, and that his wife had no rights over them.

However, Justice Milind Jadhav of the Bombay High Court dismissed this argument, clarifying that while the younger sister provided the egg, she could not be recognized as a biological parent. The court emphasized that the younger sister's role was limited to that of a voluntary donor, and she could be considered a genetic mother at most.

An advocate assisting the court noted that since the surrogacy agreement was made in 2018 before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 came into effect, it was governed by the 2005 guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). According to these guidelines, both the donor and the surrogate mother must relinquish all parental rights. Therefore, the court ruled that the twins are legally the daughters of the petitioner and her husband.

"Under the guideline, it is clearly stated that the sperm/oocyte (egg) donor shall not have parental rights or duties in relation to the child and in that view of the matter, the younger sister of the petitioner can have no right whatsoever to intervene and claim to be the biological mother of the twin daughters," the high court said.

According to the plea, the couple was unable to conceive naturally, leading the petitioner's sister to volunteer as an egg donor. The twins were conceived via a surrogate in December 2018 and were born in August 2019. Tragically, in April 2019, the sister's husband and daughter died in a road accident.

From August 2019 to March 2021, the petitioner lived with her husband and twin daughters. However, following a marital discord in March 2021, the husband moved with the children to another flat without informing his wife. He claimed that his wife’s sister, who had been struggling with depression after the accident, moved in with him to help care for the twins.

The petitioner filed a police complaint and a local court application seeking interim visitation rights, but her request was denied in September 2023. She then approached the high court.

The petitioner argued that her sister's role was limited to donating eggs and that she had no legal rights or involvement with the twins. The high court observed that the surrogacy agreement of 2018, signed by the petitioner, her husband, and the doctor, clearly identified the petitioner and her husband as the intending parents. The court found no ambiguity in this arrangement.

Justice Jadhav ruled that the lower court’s denial of visitation rights was improper and unsustainable. Consequently, the high court directed the husband to grant the petitioner physical access and visitation rights to the twins for three hours every weekend.