ARUN MUTHUVEL v. UNION OF INDIA
Supreme Court of India
2025 INSC 1209
Discusses retrospective application of statutes, vested rights, and constitutional rights related to reproductive autonomy.
Legal Discussion:
- Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021: The judgment extensively discusses several sections of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. Section 2 is referenced for definitions, specifically clauses (b) defining "altruistic surrogacy", (c) defining "appropriate authority" with reference to Section 35, (g) defining "commercial surrogacy", (h) defining "couple", (i) defining "egg", (j) defining "embryo", (l) defining "fertilisation", (m) defining "foetus", (n) defining "gamete", (r) defining "intending couple", (v) defining "oocyte", (zd) defining "surrogacy", (zf) defining "surrogacy procedures", (zg) defining "surrogate mother" with reference to Section 4(iii)(b), and (zh) defining "zygote". Section 3 is mentioned regarding the prohibition and regulation of surrogacy clinics, and the appropriate authority's power to consider applications under clause (vi). Section 4 is discussed in detail, focusing on the regulation of surrogacy and surrogacy procedures, particularly sub-section (iii)(c)(I) concerning age restrictions for intending couples, and the requirement of an 'eligibility certificate'. Section 4(ii)(a) is mentioned, mandating a medical indication for gestational surrogacy. Section 4(iii)(a)(I) is also mentioned, requiring a 'certificate of essentiality' from a District Medical Board. Section 35 is referenced as the section under which the appropriate authority is appointed. Section 36 is mentioned regarding the appropriate authority's role in considering applications. Section 53, the transitional provision, is discussed extensively, particularly its limited scope in protecting only existing surrogate mothers and not intending couples. The judgment analyzes whether the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) can be applied retrospectively to intending couples who commenced surrogacy procedures before the Act's enforcement. The court ultimately holds that the age bar does not apply retrospectively to such couples.
- Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022: The judgment refers to the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022, specifically Rule 14, which defines "Medical indications necessitating gestational surrogacy". The judgment notes that the intending couples in the present cases prima facie qualify under this rule, subject to medical opinion. The judgment also mentions Rule 14 in the context of the competent authority issuing certification provided the rule's requirements are satisfied.
- The Constitution of India: Article 21, concerning the right to life and personal liberty, is central to the judgment. The petitioners argued that the age restrictions under the Surrogacy Act violate their reproductive autonomy under Article 21. The judgment cites several cases interpreting Article 21, including Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Admn., K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) vs. Union of India, and X2 vs. State, to support the view that reproductive autonomy is a facet of personal liberty. The court ultimately concludes that the right to surrogacy, as a facet of autonomy under Article 21, was unrestricted prior to the Act's enforcement and cannot be retrospectively curtailed. Article 14 is also mentioned in the context of testing the classification created by the age-limits.
- Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021: The judgment mentions the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, particularly in the context of similar age restrictions and a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Nandini K. vs. Union of India. It also notes that words and expressions used in the Surrogacy Act but not defined therein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act.
- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: The judgment mentions the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, noting that there is no age bar for couples who wish to adopt children under its provisions, which applies to the intending couples in the present cases.
- General Principles of Statutory Interpretation: The judgment extensively discusses principles of statutory interpretation, particularly the rule against retrospective operation of statutes. It cites several cases, including CIT vs. Vatika Township (P) Ltd., K. Gopinathan Nair vs. State of Kerala, State of Bombay vs. Vishnu Ramchandra, Zile Singh vs. State of Haryana, Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. vs. Union of India, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, and Maxwell vs. Murphy, to support the view that statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed. The judgment analyzes whether the Surrogacy Act manifests a clear intention to apply the age restrictions retrospectively.
List of Laws: Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021; Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022; The Constitution of India; Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; General Principles of Statutory Interpretation