Baby Manji Yamada Vs. Union of India, AIR (2009)

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Baby Manji Yamada...

The case of Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, AIR (2009) SC 84, addressed the legal complexities of cross-border surrogacy. Following the separation of a Japanese couple before the birth of Baby Manji through a surrogacy agreement with an Indian surrogate, the Supreme Court prioritized the child’s welfare, directing the issuance of travel documents for her to join her grandmother in Japan. The Court highlighted the lack of legal frameworks for surrogacy in India and emphasized the role of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights. This landmark judgment underscored the need for surrogacy regulation, ultimately influencing the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Functional Disability Must Prevail Over Mechanical Schedule Interpretation

In Kamal Dev Prasad v. Mahesh Forge, 2025 INSC 591, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an issue of workplace injury compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act,1932 held that a disability and loss of earning capacity should not be assessed only on the basis of the Schedule, especially when there Read more »

Statutory Fiction and the Law of Savings

Prelude Somewhere in Bhagalpur, in September 1975, a person walked into a post office with an envelope and a slip of paper. The slip cost ten paise. It could be written out by hand on plain paper. The Post Office pressed a date stamp on it and handed it straight Read more »

Promotions don’t satisfy the grounds to attain the posts meant for Direct Recruitment

In Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha (2025 INSC 87), the Supreme Court held that no promotion can be claimed to a post reserved solely for direct recruitment under statutory rules. Rejecting a Peon’s claim for appointment as a Tracer, it said bypassing open selection would violate Article 16 and Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.