On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the age restriction pursuant to the Act on Reimbursement of 2021, according to a report by Livelaw, does not apply to couples that froze their embryos before the law on 25 January 2022.
Read also: cancellation of selection
The bench of justice BV Nagarathn and the judiciary of KV Viswanathan said that the right to the substitute for these couples was stipulated when at that time the embryo, which at that time did not include the age limit.
They noted that this right is part of reproductive autonomy and parenting, and therefore, according to the report, these couples cannot be retrospectively used by age restrictions under the compensation Act.
Also read: Substitute rules have changed in India: couples, free women in favor, but the conditions apply
The court explained that it did not decide on the validity of the age bar, but only considered its application for couples that launched the process before the law came into force and was disqualified for the age bar, as Livelaw states.
The law stipulates that a substitute can pursue couples where the wife is 23 to 50 years old and the husband is between 26 and 55 years. This order was made in connection with a case of three pairs. The court stated that any other couples in a similar situation should, on the basis of this decision, turn to their relevant highest courts to relieve.
The court ruled that the opening of the substitute compensation is defined as the point where the gametes are extracted and the embryo is frozen. At this stage, there is nothing else for a couple, because the next step is to transplant embryo into a spare mother.
Also read: Why in India there is a fraud with replacement
“This is because at this stage the intended couple took all the essential steps to crystallize their intention to undergo compensation,” the court ruled.
The Court rejected the Union’s argument for retrospectively the application of the age boundary, which was based on the suitability of older parents to raise a child. The court of court ruled that it was not the role of the state to determine the suitability of parents, especially with regard to the fact that there is no age restriction for couples who want to conceive and have children naturally.
Also read: No, the replacement is not exploited
“In the present case, the parental abilities of the couple are used to attack their capacity through a substitute compensation. It is not for the state to question the ability of the couple to parental children after they started to compensate if it would not be limited that it would be considered any restrictions that would not be restricted.
(With Livelaw inputs)
(Tagstotranslate) Act on Regulation on Compensation (T) Age Restriction (T) Frozen Embrya (T) Reproductive Autonomy (T) Supreme Court decision
