Dr. M vs. The Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, a couple, sought a certificate of essentiality and eligibility for surrogacy. The second respondent, the Appropriate Authority, rejected their application on August 18, 2025. The rejection was based on a cytogenetic report from the Institute of Genetics and Hospitals for Genetic Diseases indicating a chromosome analysis of 46, XY Karyotype. The petitioners challenged this order, arguing it was illegal and violated their constitutional rights. They contended that the first petitioner suffers from Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), characterized by a 46, XY karyotype, absent ovaries, and absent uterus, making natural conception impossible. A District Medical Board had previously certified this medical indication for surrogacy and recommended the use of donor oocytes. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the issuance of the certificate.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated August 18, 2025, rejecting the petitioners' application for a certificate of essentiality and eligibility for surrogacy, was unjustifiable and liable to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the District Medical Board, constituted under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, had certified that the first petitioner suffers from Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, with a 46, XY karyotype, absent ovaries, and absent uterus, necessitating the use of donor oocytes for surrogacy. This certification aligns with the medical indications for gestational surrogacy as per Rule 14 of the Act, which addresses situations where a woman is unable to carry a pregnancy to term or where it is life-threatening. The Court found that denying the opportunity for surrogacy on the grounds of the wife's karyotype contradicted the purpose of the 2021 Act, which is to help women facing such medical incapacities. Therefore, the Court directed the second respondent to issue the Certificate of Essentiality and Eligibility to the petitioners under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioners' application for a certificate of essentiality and eligibility for surrogacy, based on the wife's 46, XY karyotype, is illegal and in violation of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and its Rules? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the rejection was contrary to the spirit and letter of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which aims to assist women unable to conceive. They relied on the medical certification by the District Medical Board, which identified Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) with a 46, XY karyotype, absent ovaries, and absent uterus, necessitating donor oocytes for surrogacy. They emphasized that the Act is woman-centric and addresses medical conditions preventing pregnancy. They also cited a Supreme Court observation that Rule 14 of the 2021 Rules focuses on the wife's inability to achieve parenthood due to disability, not the husband's condition. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents.