Report No. 228
3.5 The answers discussed at the Seminar were:
(a) Surrogacy in India is legitimate because no Indian law prohibits surrogacy. To determine the legality of surrogacy agreements, the Indian Contract Act would apply and thereafter the enforceability of any such agreement would be within the domain of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Alternatively, the biological parent/s can also move an application under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 for seeking an order of appointment or a declaration as the guardian of the surrogate child.
(b) In the absence of any law to govern surrogacy, the 2005 Guidelines8 apply. But, being non-statutory, they are not enforceable or justiciable in a court of law. Under paragraph 3.10.1 of the Guidelines a child born through surrogacy must be adopted by the genetic 8 Supra paragraph 1.14 21(biological) parents. However, this may not be possible in case of those parents who cannot adopt in India.
(c) Under Section 10 of the Contract Act, all agreements are contracts, if they are made by free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not expressly declared to be void. Therefore, if any surrogacy agreement satisfies these conditions, it is an enforceable contract. Thereafter, under section 9, CPC, it can be the subject of a civil suit before a civil court for adjudication of all disputes relating to the surrogacy agreement and for a declaration/injunction as to the relief prayed for.
(d) As of today, it may be stated that a single or a gay parent can be considered to be the custodial parent by virtue of being the genetic or biological parent of the child born out of a surrogacy arrangement. Japanese baby Manji Yamada's case and the Israel gay couple's case who fathered the child in India are clear examples to establish that this is possible. Under paragraph 3.16.1 of the Guidelines dealing with legitimacy of children born through ART (which was the basis of the claim in the Japanese baby's case in the Supreme Court), this claim can be made. However, only in a petition for guardianship under the Guardians and Wards Act and/or in a suit for declaration in a civil court, the exclusive custodial rights can be adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction upon appreciation of evidence and considering all claims made in this regard.
(e) Essentially, this is a question which will require determination in accordance with the surrogacy agreement between the parties. There would apparently be no bar to either of the divorced parents claiming custody of a surrogate child if the other parent does not claim the same. However, if the custody is contested, it may require adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(f) In answer to this question it can be stated that the biological parents would be considered to be the legal parents of the child by virtue of the surrogacy agreement executed between them and the surrogate mother. Under paragraph 3.16.1 of the Guidelines dealing with legitimacy of the child born through ART, it is stated that "a child born through ART shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the couple, born within wedlock, with consent of both the spouses, and with all the attendant rights of parentage, support and inheritance". Even in the 2008 draft Bill and 23Rules, a child born to a married couple, an unmarried couple, a single parent or a single man or woman, shall be the legitimate child of the couple, man or woman, as the case may be.
(g) However, the moot question which may arise for determination is as to whether a judicial verdict determining rights of parties in a surrogacy arrangement is essential in respect of a foreign biological parent who wishes to take the surrogate child to his/her country of origin or permanent residence. It can be said that either a declaration from a civil court and/or a guardianship order ought to be a must to conclusively establish the rights of all parties and to prevent any future discrepancies arising in respect of any claims thereto.
Back
