In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has granted an exception to a woman diagnosed with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome, a medical condition that prevents her from producing eggs, allowing her to undergo surrogacy using a donor egg.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!This ruling temporarily suspends a recent amendment to the Surrogacy Rules introduced in March 2023, which had prohibited the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy by intending couples. The amended Form 2, in conjunction with Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, had specifically barred the use of donor eggs for such surrogacy. However, the Court had previously voiced concerns, suggesting that this amendment seemed to contradict Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022.
The case emerged from a series of pleas filed by married women suffering from MRKH syndrome. This congenital disorder results in absolute uterine factor infertility, rendering the affected women incapable of producing eggs. Consequently, gestational surrogacy remains their sole avenue to achieve biological motherhood.
The petitioners challenged the March 14, 2023 amendment, which altered paragraph 1(d) in Form 2. Before this change, the provision allowed for the fertilization of a donor egg with the husband’s sperm. The new amendment, however, restricted surrogacy to only the egg and sperm of the intending couple.
The Court’s primary concern revolved around the apparent contradiction between the amendment and Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy Rules, which allows gestational surrogacy for women with no uterus or an abnormal uterus. After reviewing a medical report of one of the petitioners, the Court deduced that due to her MRKH condition, she couldn’t produce eggs. This made the use of a donor egg her only feasible option for achieving parenthood. The Court also highlighted that this particular couple had initiated the surrogacy process well before the March 2023 amendment.
The Court stated,
“The petitioner herein had commenced the procedure for achieving parenthood through surrogacy much prior to the amendment, which has come into effect from 14.03.2023. Therefore, the amendment that is impeding the intending couple from achieving parenthood through surrogacy, we find is prima facie contrary to what is intended under the main provisions of the act. In such circumstances, the amendment, i.e., Clause 1(d) of Form 2 read with Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, is stayed, insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned.”
While the stay on the amendment applies specifically to the petitioner’s case, the broader issue remains under the Court’s consideration.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain represented the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondents. The case highlighted the intricate nature of surrogacy regulations and underscored the necessity for individual considerations, especially when medical conditions obstruct natural conception.
