The Kerala High Court has raised alarm over shocking reports of human trafficking and exploitation of poor women disguised as surrogacy and egg donation. The court’s remarks expose deep ethical and legal lapses in India’s fertility industry.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a recent case, the Kerala High Court raised serious concerns about possible human exploitation in the rapidly growing field of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART), including surrogacy and egg donation.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha expressed shock and dismay after reviewing what appeared to be a large-scale racket that preyed on the most vulnerable sections of society in the name of medical innovation.
The Case
The observations came during a habeas corpus petition filed by an organization called ART Bank, which sought the release of several women allegedly detained by State authorities at Santhi Bhavan, a government-run shelter home.
ART Bank claimed that these women had come forward voluntarily to act as egg donors.
However, the State authorities and the counsel for Santhi Bhavan painted a different, and far darker picture. They alleged that the women were actually victims of human trafficking, brought to Kerala under false pretenses to serve as surrogate mothers or egg donors for commercial gain.
Court’s Observations: “We Are Shocked”
The Bench didn’t mince words in condemning what it saw as a grave ethical and humanitarian crisis.
“For want of better words, prima facie, we can only say that we are shocked by what we have seen in the factual matrix of this case… Assisted Reproductive Technology has been a global game changer. Unfortunately, ART has brought into its fold various deleterious tendencies, particularly in the growing markets in low and middle-income countries,”
the Court observed.
The judges highlighted how women from economically and socially vulnerable backgrounds are often lured with the promise of money into donating eggs or becoming surrogate mothers.
These women, often with little education or social support, are left powerless and exposed to exploitation by unscrupulous middlemen operating “under the radar of law.”
“The human exploitation becomes exacerbated since there is always an emotional toll involved, extracting life resources from a human body,”
the Court remarked, describing the situation as “an abject breach of ethical standards and principles.”
The Court also pointed out that intending parents, couples desperate to have children, are themselves often victims of such unethical practices.
“There is also an exploitation of hope of the intending parents, which makes them even more vulnerable and ready to accept risks,”
the judges noted.
“Unsuspecting women – generally new mothers – are lured in by the amounts offered; creating a complex web of deceit, with unscrupulous elements controlling the whole scenario.”
Perhaps most troubling to the Bench was that such a racket could exist in Kerala, a state globally recognized for its high literacy and social development indicators.
“We are aghast and shocked – assuming the facts stated before us to be true – that such tendencies are allowed in a State like ours, where literacy is highest,”
the judges stated bluntly.
The Health Department and Police have initiated a joint investigation into ART Bank and other related activities across the state. The High Court has sought action-taken reports by October 10, and has also ordered police protection for the women involved in the case.
“The authorities have their duty cut out,”
the Court said.
“They must ensure that such exploitations are effaced and not allowed to happen in future, guided by constitutional imperatives and humanistic principles.”
ALSO READ: Ink & Chemicals Used in Lottery Ticket Printing Are Taxable: Supreme Court
Appearance:
For ART Bank: Advocate Gikku Jacob
For the State authorities: Public Prosecutor Sunil Nath
For Santhi Bhavan: advocate Ferha Azeez, Sreerag Shylan, Devananda S, and Sandhya Raju
Case Title:
ART Bank Rep by its Managing Director, Abdul Muthalif MA v. State Police Chief of Kerala
WP(CRL.) NO. 1035 OF 2025(S)
Read Order:
