NewKerala.com

Delhi HC Seeks Centre's Reply on Plea Against Frozen Embryo Adoption Ban

The Delhi High Court has directed the Centre to respond to a Public Interest Litigation challenging the ban on adoption of pre-existing frozen embryos under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021. The PIL, filed by an IVF specialist, argues that provisions prohibiting voluntary embryo donation between infertile couples are unfair and unconstitutional. It contends that while the law permits double-donor IVF with no genetic link to the child, it bans embryo adoption despite similar outcomes and safeguards. The petition states this arbitrary distinction violates the right to equality and interferes with the reproductive freedom of couples.

Key Points: Delhi HC on Plea Against Ban on Frozen Embryo Adoption

  • PIL challenges ART Act provisions
  • Court gives Centre 6 weeks to reply
  • Ban stops consent-based embryo donation
  • Petition argues violation of right to equality
2 min read

Delhi HC asks Centre to respond to plea against ban on frozen embryo adoption

Delhi High Court asks Centre to respond to PIL challenging the ban on adoption of pre-existing frozen embryos under the ART Act, 2021.

"Denying embryo adoption... is described as arbitrary and unconstitutional. - Petition"

New Delhi, January 28

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday asked the Centre, the Health Ministry, and the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to respond to a Public Interest Litigation questioning the ban on adoption of pre-existing frozen embryos under the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021.

A Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Tejas Karia directed the Union government to file its reply within six weeks. The case has been listed for further hearing on April 27. Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the petitioner, while the PIL was filed through advocate Mohini Priya.

The PIL has been filed by IVF specialist Dr Aniruddha Narayan Malpani, who has challenged Sections 25(2), 27(5), 28(2), 29 and Rule 13(1)(a) of the ART Act, 2021. According to the petition, these provisions stop even voluntary and consent-based donation of frozen embryos by one infertile couple to another infertile couple.

The plea states that this complete ban treats infertile couples unfairly. While the law allows couples to use double-donor IVF where neither parent has a genetic link with the child, it does not allow embryo adoption, even though both options lead to the same result.

The petition argues that this difference has no reasonable basis and violates the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

It further says that embryo adoption is essentially the same as double-donor IVF, as the child has no genetic connection with the donors and full parenthood lies with the receiving couple. Denying embryo adoption, despite similar medical, ethical and legal safeguards, is described as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The petitioner has also relied on Article 21 of the Constitution, arguing that the right to choose whether to have a child is part of the right to life, dignity, privacy and personal freedom. Blocking access to a medically accepted and ethically regulated reproductive option, without strong public interest reasons, is said to interfere with reproductive freedom and cause serious emotional and mental distress to infertile couples.

The plea further explains that the ART Act and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, were enacted to prevent exploitation and commercial misuse of reproductive technologies. Embryo adoption, however, does not involve surrogacy, a commissioning couple, or any third-party pregnancy. The woman adopting the embryo carries the pregnancy herself and takes full legal and parental responsibility from the beginning.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

A
Aman W
Finally, someone is challenging this. The logic of the law is completely flawed. Allowing double-donor IVF but banning embryo adoption makes zero sense when the outcome is the same for the parents. It's an unnecessary hurdle for people who just want to have a child.
R
Rohit P
I understand the need for regulation to prevent a commercial market, but a complete ban is too harsh. There should be a strict, ethical framework that allows for voluntary donation. It could give so many embryos a chance at life and complete families who are waiting.
S
Sarah B
As someone who went through IVF, I know the emotional toll. The petition is right about the mental distress. Having more options, especially one where the adopting mother carries the child, can be so meaningful. Hope the Centre reviews this with an open mind.
K
Karthik V
While I support the intent, we must be very careful. The law was made to prevent exploitation. We need robust safeguards to ensure no coercion, proper consent, and clear legal parenthood from day one. The government's response will be crucial to balance hope with protection.
N
Nisha Z
This is a classic case of a well-intentioned law having unintended consequences. The lawmakers probably didn't consider this specific, compassionate scenario. The PIL makes a strong constitutional argument on equality and reproductive freedom. Let's see if the government agrees to amend the provisions.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50