Скачать или смотреть “The Second Issue — Surrogacy Law, Reproductive Rights & The Supreme Court’s Debate”

The Supreme Court’s scrutiny of India’s Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 has reopened a profound question — should the State decide when and how a couple can exercise their reproductive choice? The plea by a couple suffering from secondary infertility challenges the law’s narrow clause that permits surrogacy only for couples without any surviving child.

Background

The law in question:
Section 4(iii)(C)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 allows surrogacy only for couples who have no surviving child — biological, adopted, or via surrogacy.
Exceptions exist only if the first child has a severe, life-threatening or disabling condition.

The petition:
A couple unable to conceive a second child (secondary infertility) petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that this restriction violates their reproductive autonomy and right to privacy under Article 21.

Government’s stand:
The State argued that surrogacy cannot be a fundamental right, since it involves another woman’s body and is subject to regulation to prevent exploitation.

Judicial context:
The Court had earlier allowed age relaxation in surrogacy for couples with frozen embryos prior to the 2021 Act — showing a willingness to balance compassion with regulation.

Main News & Analysis
What’s at stake:

This is not merely about one couple but about the scope of reproductive liberty — whether infertility, primary or secondary, should limit one’s right to access assisted reproductive technology (ART) or surrogacy.

Why it matters:

Legal inconsistency:
The law does not limit the number of natural children a person may have; restricting assisted reproduction to one child appears arbitrary.

Medical reality:
Secondary infertility is common due to conditions such as PCOS, endometriosis, miscarriages, or lifestyle factors. Medical ethics demand parity of access.

Legislative intent vs. overreach:
The stated aim was to prevent commercial surrogacy, not deny genuine cases of infertility. Distinguishing “first” vs. “second” child has no moral or medical logic.

Reproductive autonomy:
The right to decide family size, mode of reproduction, or timing of childbirth flows from Article 21 — personal liberty and privacy.

Gender justice:
The debate must also ensure protection of surrogate mothers from coercion, poor compensation, or health risk — maintaining the original spirit of the law.

Conclusion

A balanced interpretation of the Surrogacy Act is essential:

Interpretation not prohibition: Allow surrogacy for secondary infertility under strict medical certification and ethical screening.

Safeguard surrogate rights: Ensure full consent, fair remuneration (non-commercial), and health monitoring.

Strengthen ART oversight: Enforce registration, transparency, and audits of fertility clinics.

Update the law: Incorporate flexibility to address evolving reproductive technologies while keeping exploitation in check.

In essence:
Laws must serve compassion, not constraint — the right to parenthood, when exercised responsibly, deserves support, not suspicion.

Reproductive rights lie at the intersection of law, ethics, and empathy. The Surrogacy Act sought to protect women from exploitation, but its rigidity risks denying medical relief to families in need. A just interpretation must preserve the spirit of protection — without punishing parenthood.
Mains-Model Questions

Discuss the constitutional dimensions of reproductive autonomy in the context of India’s surrogacy and ART laws.

“Regulation must prevent exploitation, not compassion.” Analyse this statement in the context of secondary infertility and the Surrogacy Act, 2021.

Evaluate how judicial interpretation can bridge the gap between medical science and reproductive rights in India.
#SurrogacyAct #supremecourt #reproductiverights #secondaryinfertility #ARTAct #indialaw #righttoprivacy #teachtrick #womensrights #judiciary #medicalethics #upscnotes #currentaffairs #upsc #trending