A bench led by acting chief justice Manmohan declined to interfere with the rule, saying it was a policy matter
The Delhi high court on Monday refused to consider a plea challenging the provision that bars third parties from adopting an embryo, saying this was a policy decision of the government and the court would not interfere in this matter.
The provision, Rule 13(1)(a) of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (Regulation) Rules, 2022, rules out the option of embryo adoption by third parties by mandating Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) clinics to preserve all unused gametes or embryos exclusively for the same recipient which cannot be used by anyone else.
“In this country, there are large number of kids who are available for adoption. Asking for a trade of embryo cannot be allowed. It’s a policy of the State. We don’t decide the policy of the State. It’s not for us,” a bench of acting chief justice Manmohan and justice Tushar Rao Gedela told the lawyer who appeared for the petitioner Dr Aniruddha Narayan Malpani.
The petition, filed through advocate Mohini Priya, argued that the law “failed to consider” that recipient for whom the gametes or embryos are preserved, may no longer require them due to successful conception, change in personal circumstances or other medical reasons.
It went on to add that it also violated articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
“The rule by restricting the use of unused gametes or embryos infringes upon the reproductive rights of the couple, which are intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21. Further by imposing an unjustifiable and excessive restriction on the use of gametes, the rule violates Article 14’s guarantee of equality before the law, as it discriminates against couples who might benefit from donated embryos, especially when they are deprived of access due to stringent provision rule,” the plea said.
During the hearing, Dr Malpani’s counsel contended that the provision imposes an arbitrary restriction, ignoring the realities of reproductive health care and modern medical advancements and failed to recognise the growing acceptance of embryo or in utero adoption internationally.
The court, however, expressed its unwillingness to entertain the petition saying that it would not interfere with the policy laid down by the state.
Consequently, the counsel withdrew the petition with the liberty to file a representation before the Union health ministry.
