Menu
X

Monthly Archives: December 2023

image
2 years ago Family Law

Is unmarried woman having children through surrogacy against Indian society, SC seeks Centre opinion

The Supreme Court on December 5 questioned whether a single, unmarried woman having a child through surrogacy is an “accepted norm” in Indian society.

“A single woman bearing a child is an exception and not a rule in Indian society because our society says to have children within marriage. A single woman bearing a child is outside marriage… That is not the accepted norm of Indian society,” Supreme Court judge B.V. Nagarathna orally observed.

The Bench, also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing a petition filed by a 38-year-old single and unmarried woman to become a mother through surrogacy.

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, said she was “heavily diabetic” and pregnancy would pose a grave risk to her.

“Even an unmarried woman has the right to have a child,” Mr. Kirpal submitted.

The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 allows a widow, a divorced woman between the age of 35 and 45 years, and an infertile couple to avail the benefit of surrogacy.

Mr. Kirpal said the law only banned commercial surrogacy. The purpose of the petitioner was obviously not towards that end. Limiting the right to become a mother and discriminating against a woman on the basis of her status of marriage was discriminatory and violative of her fundamental rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Nagarathna said the Parliament had recognised the “potential” of a widow or a divorcee, who had gone through marriage and was struck by the “misfortune” of losing her partner through death or divorce, to have a child through surrogacy.

The petitioner’s side argued that it was not their “misfortune” which led the Parliament to allow divorcees and widows to have children through surrogacy. They argued that the exclusion of unmarried women boiled down to “patriarchal stigma” against them.

Justice Nagarathna said the law has made marriage a basis of classification, and not discrimination.

The judge said married and unmarried woman enjoy the same status and rights as far as termination of pregnancy was concerned. They were treated on par even in the case of adoption.

“But here we are concerned whether single women can have children through surrogacy when the Parliament has not permitted it… Should this court say unmarried women can go for surrogacy?” Justice Nagarathna said.

“Society may not be used to having a single woman bear children, but is that a reason to deny them the right? A multitude of women choose not to marry, some do not get married not because they wish to… Their choices have to be respected. We cannot force them to get married to have a child,” Mr. Kirpal submitted.

The petitioner’s lawyers said she had frozen her eggs in December 2023.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, for the Centre, said unmarried women could undergo pregnancy through assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

“But then she would have to undergo pregnancy,” Mr. Kirpal said.

“We have a conundrum here. How many ART procedures have happened in India for unmarried women?” Justice Nagarathna asked the Centre.

The judge said “we are keeping in mind the pulse of Indian society”. Mr. Kirpal responded that the court should “keep in mind the pulse of the Indian Constitution”. The court issued notice to the Centre.

Source: The Hindu

image
2 years ago Supreme Court

Sensitive cases shifted from one bench to other, senior advocate Dushyant Dave alleges in open letter to CJI

Former president of Supreme Court Bar Association and senior advocate Dushyant Dave on December 6 wrote an open letter to Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud expressing his “anguish” on “sensitive” cases being taken away from specific benches and judges.

Cases, instead of remaining with the lead judge on a Bench, were listed before the associate judge when the latter starts heading a new Bench, which he said, is in clear violation of the Supreme Court Rules and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure of the Court which govern listing of cases. Most of these cases, Dave noted, were of matters pertaining to human rights, the functioning of constitutional institutions, democracy, freedom of speech etc.

“I have personally come across a number of cases listed before various Hon’ble Benches upon first listing and/ or in which notice have been issued, being taken away from those Hon’ble Benches and listed before other Hon’ble Benches. Despite first coram being available the matters are being listed before Hon’ble Benches in which second coram presides,” Dave wrote in the letter.

He further specifically mentioned that matters listed before Court No. 2, 4, 6, 7 amongst others have been shifted out and listed before other Benches, which is in clear violation of the Supreme Court Rules.

Curiously, the Seniority of the first coram is also being ignored in doing so, he said. “Our attention is also been drawn by esteemed Colleagues at the Bar, Seniors, and Advocates on Record (AoRs), about various cases in which they have appeared in the first instance on numerous occasions, later the matters being listed before different Benches,” the letter stated.

While Dave refused to enumerate further on these matters as many of them are pending before the court, he urged the CJI to look into the matter and take corrective measures immediately, as “such a practice does not augur well for the institution.”

The development comes a day after a petition challenging the Union government’s delay in appointing judges whose name had been cleared by the Collegium was not listed before Justice S.K. Kaul on Tuesday (December 5), even though it was earlier decided to be placed before him. Justice Kaul said neither had he deleted the matter from the cause list, nor was he unwilling to hear it. He had earlier heard the matter on November 20 and then posted it for December 5

“I had not deleted it or expressed unwillingness to take it up. I am sure the CJI is aware of it (the deletion). Some things are best left unsaid. We will see,” Justice Kaul said, according to Bar and Bench.

Recently joined
December 7, 2022
December 7, 2022
December 14, 2022
Latest Law-firms
June 18, 2016
June 18, 2016
June 18, 2016
Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive our latest news and updates. We do not spam.

Copyright © 2022 Law Forum. All Rights Reserved.