A country like India with a suspiciously declining fertility rate of around 2.2 (births per woman) witnessed a rise in infertile couples opting surrogacy as an alternative reproductive choice in the last decade. Globally, 15 % of reproductive-aged couples are affected by infertility.[1] There are a number of factors that lead to infertility including, but not limited to- obesity, diabetes, mental stress, sexually transmitted infections, overuse of emergency contraceptives, hormonal imbalance, etc.[2] With a rapid boost in urbanisation and technology, these issues have jumped into the spotlight. Yet, surrogacy stays an under-developed field in the Indian legal context.

 The debate and discussion on surrogacy is as old as surrogacy itself. It has been quite a controversial issue owing to its complex nature and the abject lack of a just and firm legislation to regulate it. As and when posed with a legal complication and a dire need for a legislation, the Legislature and the judiciary have made attempts to atone and introduce a framework for surrogacy clinics to operate. We shall discuss this later into the paper. However, none of these efforts have reached fruition as of yet and the ambiguity around the subject remains intact.

Owing to all this, the vulnerability of a surrogate mother is the highest among the parties to a surrogate arrangement. There have been instances where the delivered baby was refused acceptance by intended parents due to divorce or some abnormality in the child. A landmark case that describes this scenario perfectly is the Baby Manji Yamada vs. UOI and Anr.[3] (2008) along with a few other cases which will later be discussed in this paper. Before delving into the rights and obligations related to surrogacy, let’s briefly understand what surrogacy is.

 What is Surrogacy?

In a nutshell, surrogacy is a system of assisted reproduction wherein the intended parents rely on a surrogate mother who is willing to carry and care for their baby until birth. Intended parents that are unable to conceive naturally use surrogacy to start or grow their families while maintaining their heredity. This could be because of infertility or some physical abnormalities/conditions of the biological mother that make it unsafe for her to carry the child. There are variations in surrogacy on the basis of Genetic relationship (Gestational vs. Traditional), Payment of the surrogate (Compensated vs. Altruistic), place of completion (Domestic vs. International), etc.

• Gestational Surrogacy vs. Traditional Surrogacy-

In gestational surrogacy, the child is not biologically related to the surrogate mother (gestational carrier). Instead, the embryo is created via in vitro fertilization (IVF), using the eggs and sperm of the intended parents or donors, and is then transferred to the surrogate. In contrast to this, in Traditional Surrogacy, the surrogate mother is artificially inseminated with the intended father’s or a donor’s sperm. Since the surrogate contributes her own egg and thus has a biological link with the baby, it is also called as ‘partial surrogacy’.[4]  

• Compensated vs. Altruistic Surrogacy

When intended parents pay a surrogate mother compensation above and beyond reimbursement of her medical expenses for carrying their baby till birth, it is called compensated or commercial surrogacy. Altruistic Surrogacy, on the other hand, is when the surrogate mother gets no additional monetary compensation apart from for maintenance and other pregnancy related expenses. Most of these arrangements happen between close friends or relatives of the intended parents.

Surrogacy has proven to be a sigh of relief for infertile couples who go through the trauma of being unable to reproduce naturally. Regardless, it still isn’t a cake-walk and has psychological as well as social barriers that makes opting for surrogacy a tough call. Besides, commercial surrogacy, by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 (passed by Lok Sabha), is on its way to be completely banned in India owing to a multitude of illegal rackets, unregulated procedures, legal complications and above all, the outright exploitation of the surrogate mother. The ban was partially imposed by ICMR on 28th September, 2015 by sending a letter notifying all clinics in India to disallow foreign commissioning parents to have babies through an Indian surrogate mother. Most states do not allow traditional surrogacy and delimit surrogacy agreements to altruistic and gestational forms. For eg., UK, Denmark, Australia, Canada and Greece permit only altruistic surrogacy while Germany, France, Italy and Sweden have a blanket ban on surrogacy.[5] India, on the other hand is still in the grey when it comes to a definite surrogacy regulations.

Brief History of Surrogacy in India.

On 3^rd October, 1978, the successful birth of the first IVF baby Kanupriya alias Durga in Kolkata sowed the seed of surrogacy as an alternative reproductive technology (ART) in India. In the year 2002, commercial surrogacy was made legal in India. The technology developed and mushroomed in a way, that by 2012, India came to be known as the ‘Surrogacy Capital of the World’ having approximately a $500 million per annum market.[6] Couples from all over the world seeking surrogates at cheaper rates started flying to India. However, along with prosperity, came a plethora of legal and philosophical complications. Being an awfully unregulated sector, unsafe and unethical practices sprouted to meet the foreign demand.

Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India[7], a landmark case that made the apex court question the validity of commercial surrogacy set into motion talks for having the country a just and solid legislation. In the said case, the biological parents, Dr. Yuki Yamada and Dr. Ikufumi Yamada came to India in 2017 and entered in an agreement with a surrogate mother in Anand, Gujarat. Subsequently, the surrogate baby was born on 25/6/2008. By this time, the intended parents, due to marital conflicts had separated and though it was agreed upon initially that the father would be granted custody if such a situation arose, Dr. Yuki’s visa expired and he had to fly back to Japan. Nonetheless, he tried to still claim the baby by applying for her passport, but the Japanese Civil Code[8] bore no recognition for surrogate children born to a woman of non-Japanese origin and thus, rejected his application.

At this point, the baby didn’t belong to anyone. Even the surrogate mother was absolved of rights and responsibilities with the delivery of the baby. Between this labyrinth of legal and diplomatic complications, Manji’s paternal grandmother, Emiko Yamada flew to India to foster the baby.  Soon, a Jaipur based NGO- SATYA moved Rajasthan High Court using the writ of Habeus Corpus claiming illegal custody of Manji by Emiko. The case advanced and the Court gave a four weeks notice to produce the baby before it. Seeking justice for herself and the baby, a helpless Emiko moved the apex court for intervention.[9] The court, inter alia, gave the government directions with respect to the grandmother’s visa extension and the baby’s passport grant. Later, The Regional Passport Office, Rajasthan issued a first of its kind Certificate of Identification which didn’t have a mention of nationality and mother’s name for the baby to expedite her transit to Japan. Ending the story on a happy note, Japanese Embassy granted the child a one-year visa on humanitarian grounds and Baby Manji and Grandma Emiko flew back to Japan.

This case, however influential, failed to address the outburst of commercial surrogacy and its ill-reaching impacts on poor women. On the other hand, it is laudatory that the court rendered its decision in time considering the predicament of the baby. Nonetheless, it put forth the dire need for a well-structured and inclusive legislation for surrogacy arrangements.

Another case similar to this is that of Jan Balaz v. Anand municipality and ors.[10] in which a German couple that followed the same process of trying to have a baby inexpensively through an Indian surrogate faced parental ownership issues. In this case, twin babies, Leonard and Nicolas were, by the order of the Gujarat High Court issued two overseas Indian passports. Since the babies were born in India, they were already established to be citizens of India by the S (3)(1)(c)(ii) of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The babies were allowed to return home after the parents successfully adopted them. They, nonetheless, remained citizens of India.

To counter these practices, the ICMR (Indian Council for Medical Research), in 2005, came up with a set of provisional guidelines- The National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India, which in furtherance, became the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Bill 2008 followed by a revised draft in 2010 and 2013. After much deliberation and research, In February this year, the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 was approved by the cabinet.

The 228^th Law Commission report took suo motu cognizance of the issue at hand. It was titled, ‘Need for legislation to regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology clinics as well as rights and obligations of parties to a surrogacy’. It was chaired by Dr. Justice A.R. Lakshmanan. A few suggestions by the commission were[11]-

• Surrogacy arrangements should be governed by contract between the parties, but such arrangements shouldn’t be for commercial purposes.
• Birth certificate of the surrogate child should contain name(s) of the commissioning parent(s) only.
• Right to Privacy of donor as well as surrogate mother should be protected.
• Sex-selective surrogacy should be prohibited.
• Cases of abortion should be governed by Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.

          All of these efforts contributed substantially to form the draft of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2014. Apart from this Bill, in November, 2016, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 was introduced in and passed by the Lok Sabha. It sought to confine surrogacy to non-commercial, altruistic and performed by a ‘close relative’. The bill was drafted in a way that it reflects the “ethos of the Indian people”.[12] However, this bill was further referred to a Parliamentary Standing committee (PSC) which suggested some pivotal changes like expanding the scope of being potential surrogate mothers to any willing woman and not just close relatives, raising the insurance cover, allowing compensated surrogacy, including live-in couples, NRIs, widows, divorced women, etc.[13] Ignoring most of these suggestions, a bill similar to the 2016 bill, the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 was passed by the Lok Sabha in August 2019. The Rajya Sabha considered it fit to refer the bill to a Select committee before passing it. After flood, storm and fire, today, we have The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 (introduced before the Parliament)[14] and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 (Pending before Lok Sabha)[15]  that have the potential to legally transform the landscape of surrogacy in India. Let’s roll into analysing these bills vis-à-vis rights and obligations of parties to surrogacy arrangements.

Rights and Obligations of Parties to Surrogacy arrangements.

          The parties to Surrogacy ‘contract’ are the surrogate woman, her husband if she is married, the surrogate child and the intending parent(s).[16] A Surrogacy Agency and the donor may or may not be a party to the ‘arrangement’ depending on whether the intending couples choose to opt for one or not. In light of the drafts of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill and Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, following are the rights and obligations of these parties-

• The intended parents need to produce-

1. A certificate of proven infertility (of either or both) obtained from a district medical board in order to enter into a surrogacy contract. In the 2019 Surrogacy Regulation Bill, ‘infertility was defined as “the inability to conceive after five years of unprotected coitus or other proven medical condition preventing a couple from conception”. However, the 2020 bill seeks to delete this definition, since 5 years was too long a period to wait for a child.
2. An order concerning the parentage and custody of the child to be born through surrogacy passed by a court of the Magistrate of the first class or above, on an application made by the intending couple and surrogate mother.
3. An insurance coverage of such amount as may be prescribed[17] in favour of the surrogate mother from an insurance company or an agent recognised by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority established under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
4. An eligibility certificate issued by appropriate authority after ensuring the intending couple – is aged between 23-50 years in case of the female and 26-55 years in case of the male; is married for at least 5 years and are Indian citizens or Overseas Citizen of India (OCIs), People of Indian Origin (PIOs), Non Resident Indians (NRIs) and foreigner married to an Indian citizen; have not had any surviving child biologically or through adoption. Note that the last condition doesn’t apply if the intending couple have a child who is mentally or physically challenged or suffers from life threatening disorder or fatal illness with no permanent cure.

• It is the obligation of the surrogacy clinic to explain thoroughly all known side effects and after effects of the procedure to the surrogate mother and get a written consent from her in the language she understands.
• The commissioning couple is obliged to not abandon the child, born out of a surrogacy procedure, whether within India or outside, for any reason whatsoever, including but not restricted to, any genetic defect, birth defect, any other medical condition, the defects developing subsequently, sex of the child or conception of more than one baby, etc. They also aren’t allowed to avail services of more than one surrogate at a time.
• A surrogacy clinic has to compulsorily register itself by making an application to an appropriate authority under the act. It can operate only after authorisation by the authority.
• Neither of the parties to the surrogacy agreement can conduct, offer, undertake, promote or associate with or avail of ‘commercial surrogacy’ in any form; exploit or cause harm to the surrogate mother or child in any manner whatsoever; advertise or promote commercial surrogacy in any manner.
• No person, organisation, surrogacy clinic, laboratory or clinical establishment of any kind shall force the surrogate mother to abort at any stage of surrogacy except in such conditions as may be prescribed.
• The intended parents are bound by the surrogacy agreement to pay for the surrogate’s expenses that include expenses related to the entire medical procedure of surrogacy, expenses of feeding the embryo in the gestation period, the attorney’s fee (if appointed) and all other medical expenses as and when required.[18]
• The surrogate is also obligated to nurture the child in her womb during the gestational period (this includes feeding herself well, regular visits to gynaecologists, proper medication, etc.) The surrogate is duty-bound not to engage in any act that may harm the foetus in any manner. At the same time, the surrogate and her husband are not allowed to have an extra-marital affair during the gestation period. The Surrogate has to hand over the baby, relinquishing all her parental rights, to the intended parents at the time decided in the agreement which may be right after delivery or after the breastfeeding period.[19]
• Surrogate mother should be an ever married Indian woman between 25-35 years of age and shall have at least one live child of her own with minimum age of three years and should act as a surrogate for not more than one successful live birth in her life and with not less than two years interval between the two deliveries.
• If the first embryo transfer fails, the surrogate shall undergo not more than two more embryo transfers for the same couple.
• The child born through a surrogacy shall have-

1. The status of legitimate child of the commissioning couple (even if the married couple divorce).
2. Identical legal rights as a legitimate child born out of sexual intercourse.
3. Overseas Citizenship of India under Section 7A of Citizenship Act, 1955 if born to Overseas Citizen of India, People of Indian Origin or a foreigner married to an Indian citizen.
4. The right to ask for information, excluding personal identification, regarding the donor or the surrogate.

 [extracted from the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2017]

     All these rights and obligations of parties along with other provisions negotiated between the parties need to be drafted into a surrogacy contract which shall be legally enforceable.

State of the Indian Surrogate- the past, the present, the future.

          The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 defines a surrogate mother as “a woman bearing a child who is genetically related to the intending couple, through surrogacy from the implantation of embryo in her womb..”. Surrogacy is more than just an alternative way of conceiving babies. It involves sacrifices made by a woman out of her own free will to bless an unfortunate couple with a child and complete a family. In India, specifically, where surrogacy is limited to only altruistic means, a woman coming forward, ignoring social stigma to take up the enormous responsibility of fostering a child not belonging to her in her womb and then handing it over on delivery is worth a ton of praise.

          For years, in India, commercial surrogacy was practised freely without any regulation. This boosted the sector by leaps and bounds. India saw an exponential influx of foreign demands for surrogacy and to cater to it, an unregulated, uncontrolled practice of ‘renting wombs’ took seed and it put the surrogate mother in a highly vulnerable position. Diksha Munjal-Shankar conducted an empirical study[20] in 2014 at a renowned infertility clinic in Anand, Gujarat and it showed some findings that depicted the unfortunate status of surrogates then. It was found that most of the surrogates had received only basic education, belonged to poor households and didn’t have a monthly salary of more than Rs. 3000/month. They were drawn towards commercial surrogate motherhood only by the prospect of earning 10 times their normal monthly income since they received upto Rs. 3,75,000 from the surrogacy arrangement. However, the state in which the surrogate mothers were kept was way below adequate. They were kept in hostel rooms having single iron beds with 2.5-3 feet of distance between each. The food provided to them was below par and most of them complained about it. They weren’t allowed to leave the facility even for a simple stroll. This clearly violated their freedom of movement guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution of India. Even if they felt like stepping out, the fear of social censure haunted them. Besides, the surrogates usually didn’t meet the commissioning couples during the gestational period. They had minuscule amount of mental and emotional support. The worst of all this was that the surrogates weren’t thoroughly adept with the surrogacy procedure and the agreement between the parties too, was in English. This put them in an ever more vulnerable position in the bigger scheme of things. After the delivery, the baby was immediately handed over to the commissioning parents and for the purpose of feeding the child, apparatuses were used to pump out the mother’s milk. These are still findings from just one study conducted in one clinic.

          There have also been instances of sex-selective abortions and post-delivery abandonment of the child due to some birth defect. All these findings point to the commodification of the surrogate mother and the surrogate child. Nonetheless, this was somewhat of a dark past of surrogacy arrangements in India. As of today, foreign nationals opting for surrogacy in India as well as commercial surrogacy in any form has been banned in India. The upcoming legislations, as we have discussed in the previous section seek to formalise the same. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[21] recognized reproductive rights as a fundamental right  and upheld ‘the right to reproductive autonomy’ of an individual as a part of their right to privacy. ART Regulation Bill, 2020 provides stringent punishments for sex selective surrogacy.[22] This is likely to protect a lot of surrogates from being forced to abort because of the sex of the child. According to S. 9 of Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2017 too, no person organisation or surrogacy clinic may force a surrogate to abort except in such conditions as may be prescribed. These conditions should be in compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. By the said act, a pregnancy can be terminated within 12 weeks, if one registered medical practitioner, and 12-20 weeks, if at least two medical practitioners are convinced that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or grave injury to her physical or mental health.

           Apart from this, the SRB, 2017 imposes an imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years and with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees against anyone who exploits a surrogate mother in any manner whatsoever. This provision creates a sense of security in the mind of women willing to act as surrogates. Arguably, one of the biggest highlights of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 is the nature of S. 39 which does not follow the Indian legal system of “innocent until proven guilty”. By natural legal practice, the burden of proving guilt of the accused is on the plaintiff. However, S. 39 assumes that a woman or surrogate was compelled by her husband, the intending couple or any other relative, as the case may be, to render surrogacy services, procedures or to donate gametes for the purpose other than those specified under the clauses of the act and such person shall be liable for abetment of such offence under S. 37 (punishment for initiation of commercial surrogacy) and shall be punishable for the offence specified under that section (imprisonment for not less than five years and a fine which may extend to up to 5 lakh rupees) unless the contrary is proved. In addition, all offences under the act shall be cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. The reasoning behind this may be based on the vulnerability of the surrogate mother due to the nature of surrogacy procedure. When it comes to the ensuring good health of the surrogate mother, the responsibility doesn’t and thus, mustn’t cease after the baby is delivered as post-partum complications are common and can affect the surrogate mentally, physically and financially. Hence, The SRB, 2020 extends the insurance cover for a surrogate mother from 16 months to 36 months.

          Despite all these provisions, there are some facets that need critical evaluation and an eventual inclusion in the bill. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in B.K. Parthasarthi v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[23] recognized reproductive rights as a fundamental right of a woman and upheld ‘the right to reproductive autonomy’ of an individual as a part of their right to privacy. This means that a woman’s reproductive rights and her right to bodily autonomy come under the ambit of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution. The latest drafts of the bills only allow a married Indian woman between the age of 25-35 years who has already had a child and is mentally and physically fit to act as a surrogate, only once in her lifetime. It is arbitrary in terms that it doesn’t empanel single women or childless married women who are physically and mentally fit to be surrogates. In fact, married women with children already have a number of responsibilities and may even face some restrictions from their husbands while deciding whether to act as a surrogate or not. Secondly, although commercial surrogacy, as we discussed earlier in this paper, proved to be detrimental to women, it was a rich source of income for women, especially ones from financially weak households. That’s not to say that commercial surrogacy is justified. However, in appreciation of the surrogate mother’s sacrifices, she should receive some amount of compensation over and above reimbursement of other expenses. The Parliamentary Standing Committee that the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 was referred to put forth that the bill “is based more on moralistic assumptions than on any scientific criteria,” and that “all kinds of value judgments have been injected into it in a paternalistic manner.” The committee suggested replacing “altruistic” surrogacy with “compensated” surrogacy as it reckoned surrogate mothers should be paid reasonable compensation within a range of payments.[24]

Conclusion

After going through the malpractices related to surrogacy, the ups and downs, debates and discussions, multiple amendments, The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Bill, 2020 are finally on their way to become concrete legislations that will, let’s hope, regulate the surrogacy procedures in the country and establish a free, yet secure ART environment. Even so, the defects and shortcomings of the bills should be studied and deliberated upon by Rajya Sabha before approving them. With the establishment of National Surrogacy board at the central level, State Surrogacy Boards for respective states and other appropriate boards for Union territories, a constant check on the sector is definite. Yet, at the end of the day it all boils down to how these bills, if enacted, are implemented and accepted.

Citations:

[1] Infertility, National Health Portal, available at https://www.nhp.gov.in/disease/reproductive-system/infertility#:~:text=Infertility%20affects%20up%20to%2015%25%20of%20reproductive%2Daged%20couples%20worldwide., Last seen on 02/08/2020.

[2] N. Lal, India’s Hidden Infertility Struggles- Behind India’s booming population is another story: declining fertility rates and desperate couples. The Diplomat(30/05/2018), available at https://thediplomat.com/2018/05/indias-hidden-infertility-struggles/,  last seen on 02/08/2020.

 [3] Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India & Anr., (2008) 13 SCC 518.

[4] About Surrogacy- Types of Surrogacy, Surrogate.com, available at https://surrogate.com/about-surrogacy/types-of-surrogacy/, last seen on 02/08/2020.

[5]SURROGACY (REGULATION) BILL, 2020, Manifest IAS, available at  https://www.manifestias.com/2020/03/03/surrogacy-regulation-bill-2020/, last seen on 03/08/2020.

[6] Wellness and Medical Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Government of India, available at http://tourism.gov.in/wellness-medical-tourism, last seen on 04/08/2020.

[7] Supra 3.

[8] Part IV, Ch. 3, S. 1, Art. 772 (1), Civil Code 1896, (Japan).

[9] Japan gate-pass for baby Manji, The Telegraph online (17/10/2008), available at https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/japan-gate-pass-for-baby-manji/cid/534514, last seen on 04/08/2020.

[10] Jan Balaz Vs. Anand Municipality & Ors., Letters Patent Appeal No.2151 of 2009.

[11] 228^th Law Commission of India Report, Need for legislation to regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology clinics as well as rights and obligations of parties to a surrogacy, 26 27 (2008), available at http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/report228.pdf, last seen on 05/08/2020.

[12] Prabha Kotiswaran and Sneha Banerjee, Tracing the journey, and flaws, of the surrogacy bill, Hindustan times (16/01/2020), available at https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/tracing-the-journey-and-flaws-of-the-surrogacy-bill/story-zuWjB3MXl3KHZ3lQ3dcpAJ.html, last seen on 05/08/2020.

[13] Ibid.

[14] hereinafter referred to as SRB, 2020.

[15] hereinafter referred to as ARTR, 2020.

[16] R. K. Bangia, Indian Contract Act, Allahabad Law Agency, Haryana (14th edn.- 2009) p. 82.

[17] The SRB, 2020 prescribes a 36 month insurance cover.

[18] L. Ahlsarmadi, The Rights and Obligations of parties to a Surrogacy Contract, 4 Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research In Business 164, 170 (2012), available at https://journal-archieves23.webs.com/164-175.pdf, last seen on 06/08/2020.

[19] Ibid at 172.

[20] D. Munjal-Shankar, COMMERCIAL SURROGACY IN INDIA: VULNERABILITY CONTEXTUALISED, Volume no. 58 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 350, 356 (2016).

[21] B.K. Parthasarathi vs Government Of A.P. And Others, 2000 (1) ALD 199, 1999 (5) ALT 715.

[22] Cabinet approves the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Bill 2020, PM INDIA, available at https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/cabinet-approves-the-assisted-reproductive-technology-regulation-bill-2020/#:~:text=The%20Assisted%20Reproductive%20Technology%20Regulation%20Bill%202020%20is%20the%20most,technology%20services%20in%20the%20country., last seen on 09/08/2020.

[23] B.K. Parthasarathi vs Government Of A.P. And Others, 2000 (1) ALD 199, 1999 (5) ALT 715.

[24] S. Kumar, India’s Proposed Commercial Surrogacy Ban Is an Assault on Women’s Rights, The Wire (09/11/2019), available at https://thewire.in/law/surrogacy-ban-assault, last seen on 11/08/2020.

Author:

Aditya Shete is a 2^nd year student of BALLB at ILS Law College Pune.

His areas of academic interest include- Bio-ethics, International Law, IPR, Constitution and Criminal law. Aditya aspires to pursue a career in litigation.