Today, On 23rd September, The Delhi High Court rejected a plea challenging the rule that mandates embryos be preserved solely for the original recipient. The petition sought to contest the regulation, arguing it restricted the use of preserved embryos. However, the court upheld the existing rule, emphasizing the need to adhere to current legal and ethical standards.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Monday declined to hear a petition challenging a regulation that requires Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) clinics to preserve all unused gametes or embryos exclusively for the original recipient, prohibiting their use for any other couple or individual.
The petitioner argued that this rule could result in the unnecessary destruction of viable biological material, which could otherwise be used to assist other individuals or couples struggling with infertility.
Read Also: Supreme Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Exclusion of Transwomen from Surrogacy Law
A bench led by Chief Justice-designate Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed,
“We cannot decide the policy of the state. It is decided by the elected representatives. We cannot allow it.”
Following the court’s observations, the petitioner, Dr. Aniruddha Narayan Malpani, opted to withdraw the plea, with the liberty to submit a representation to the Central government on the matter.
Dr. Malpani had challenged Section 24 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, along with Rule 13(1)(a) of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Rules, 2022. He contended that the rule was arbitrary, unreasonable, excessive, and in violation of fundamental rights protected by the Constitution, particularly infringing on the reproductive rights and choices of couples.
The petitioner argued that the provision imposes an “arbitrary restriction,” disregarding the realities of reproductive healthcare and advancements in modern medicine. The plea further highlighted that in many cases, the original recipient may no longer need the preserved gametes or embryos due to successful conception, changes in personal circumstances, or other medical reasons.
The petition stated,
“Embryo adoption allows for the donation of embryos from one couple to another for implantation, initiating the adoption process from the moment of conception and fostering a profound connection between the adoptive parents and the child. This practice offers a modern alternative to traditional adoption, especially in regions where legal and procedural obstacles make the adoption process lengthy and cumbersome.”
Read Also: Surrogate Mothers Also have “Right to Maternity Leave” : Orissa HC
It further argued that,
“Allowing embryo adoption in a regulated manner could help meet the high demand for adoption while also easing the burden on fertility clinics, which are currently required to store unused embryos indefinitely.”
The petition also emphasized that,
“The challenged rule fails to acknowledge the increasing international acceptance of embryo or in-utero adoption. This method allows one couple to donate embryos to another, enabling the adoption process to begin from conception and strengthening the bond between the adoptive parents and the child.”