Justice Nagarathna added a regional perspective and commented, “If you look at southern states, family sizes are already shrinking.”
NEW DELHI: Today, 9th May: Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court orally expressed concerns that carrying out delimitation based on population figures could lead to reduced parliamentary representation for the southern states, given their declining population growth compared to the northern states.
The observations came while a bench of Justices Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a batch of petitions concerning the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act.
Justice Nagarathna added a regional perspective and commented, “If you look at southern states, family sizes are already shrinking.”
She further linked this issue to the national debate around delimitation and its connection with population trends.
“This is exactly the concern with delimitation — the population in the South is declining, while Northern states continue to grow due to larger families,” she said.
During the hearing, the advocate appearing for the couple said, “The couple has a fundamental right to grow their family. The woman has suffered six miscarriages while trying for a second child.”
In response, Justice Nagarathna questioned the necessity of opting for surrogacy in this specific context.
She remarked, “We can understand using assisted methods for the first child—but here the first child was conceived naturally, and now they want to go through IVF.”
In defence of the couple’s right, the advocate argued that the current law around surrogacy was created to protect surrogate mothers, not to deny genuine families the right to expand.
“The original intent of the law was to prevent exploitation of surrogate mothers. But in this case, the parents simply wish to expand their family,” the advocate submitted.
Justice Nagarathna responded by questioning the need for a second child. “You already have one child — why seek another? Nowadays, many couples don’t want children at all. Often, it’s the in-laws who perform rituals and prayers for grandchildren, while the couple has already decided against having kids,” she observed.
The advocate replied, “But ultimately, that’s a matter of personal choice.”
Concluding the hearing, Justice Nagarathna announced, “We’ll schedule the matter for listing on July 22, 2025.” She also suggested that the petitioner could have approached a High Court instead.
“Also why don’t you approach the High Court?” she asked.
To this, the advocate explained, “In a similar case, the Bombay High Court declined to hear it, stating that the matter is already pending before the Supreme Court.”
