Bombay High Court Strikes Down Surrogacy Rule Requiring Certificate of Genetic Abnormality for Intending Couple. Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 held ultra vires the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 as it imposes additional condition beyond the Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, a married couple, sought to have a child through surrogacy due to the wife's medical issues. They challenged Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023, which required a certificate of genetic abnormality from a District Medical Board. The court examined Section 4(iii)(c) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which only requires a certificate of medical necessity. The court found that the rule imposed an additional condition not present in the Act, making it ultra vires. The court struck down the rule, allowing the petitioners to proceed with surrogacy without the genetic abnormality certificate.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Ultra Vires - Delegated Legislation - Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 - The impugned rule required intending couples to produce a certificate of genetic abnormality from a District Medical Board, which was not mandated by Section 4(iii)(c) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The court held that the rule imposed an additional condition beyond the Act and was ultra vires the parent statute. (Paras 1-18)

B) Surrogacy Law - Interpretation of Statute - Section 4(iii)(c) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 - The Act only requires a certificate of medical necessity for surrogacy, not a specific genetic abnormality certificate. The court reasoned that the rule's requirement was not supported by the Act and thus invalid. (Paras 10-15)

C) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Validity of Rules - The court applied the principle that delegated legislation must be within the scope of the parent Act. Since the rule added a new condition not found in the Act, it was struck down. (Paras 16-18)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023, requiring a certificate of genetic abnormality for intending couples to avail surrogacy, is ultra vires the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 as ultra vires the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The petitioners were permitted to proceed with surrogacy without the requirement of a certificate of genetic abnormality from a District Medical Board.

Law Points

  • Doctrine of ultra vires
  • Rule against adding restrictions beyond statute
  • Interpretation of Section 4(iii)(c) of Surrogacy Act
  • 2021
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (BOM) (02) 203

Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2023 and Writ Petition (L) No. 22674 of 2023

2024-02-09

G. S. Kulkarni, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla

2024:BHC-OS:2255-DB

Tejesh Dande, Vishal Navale, Bharat Gadhavi, Trusha Shah, Vikrant Khare, Pratik Sabrad, Chinmay Deshpande, Sarvesh Deshpande, Janaki Patil, Y. R. Mishra, Anusha P. Amin, Jyoti Chavan, Sachin H. Kankal, Rishikesh M. Pethe

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging validity of a rule under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 and to allow them to proceed with surrogacy without the impugned certificate

Filing Reason

The petitioners were unable to have a child naturally due to the wife's medical issues and were required to obtain a certificate of genetic abnormality under the impugned rule, which they contended was ultra vires the Act

Issues

Whether Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 is ultra vires the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the impugned rule imposes an additional condition not found in Section 4(iii)(c) of the Act, which only requires a certificate of medical necessity. Respondents argued that the rule is within the rule-making power under Section 50 and is necessary to prevent misuse.

Ratio Decidendi

Delegated legislation cannot impose conditions beyond those prescribed by the parent Act. Since the Surrogacy Act only requires a certificate of medical necessity, the rule requiring a specific genetic abnormality certificate is ultra vires.

Judgment Excerpts

The impugned notification prescribing the amending Rules reads thus: 'G.S.R. 179(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 50 of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021...' The court held that the rule requiring a certificate of genetic abnormality is not supported by Section 4(iii)(c) of the Act and is therefore ultra vires.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed two writ petitions challenging the same rule. The court heard both together and delivered a common judgment.

Acts & Sections

  • Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: Section 4(iii)(c), Section 50
  • Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022: Rule 7, Form-2
  • Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023: Rule 1(d)(I), Rule 1(d)(II)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Borrower's Writ Petition Challenging DRT Order and Sale Proclamation Due to Alternative Remedy and Delay. Petitioner Failed to Appeal Under Section 30 of RDB Act, 1993 Against DRT Order Dated 14.3.2000, and Filed Wri...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Strikes Down Surrogacy Rule Requiring Certificate of Genetic Abnormality for Intending Couple. Rule 1(d)(I) & (II) of Surrogacy (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2023 held ultra vires the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 as it imposes a...