H Siddaraju & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors

In H Siddaraju & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2023), the Karnataka High Court addressed a challenge to Sections 4(iii)(c)(I) and 2(1)(zg) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which impose age limits of 50 for women and 55 for men and restrict altruistic surrogacy to genetically related surrogate mothers. The petitioners argued these provisions lacked rationale, particularly in cases like theirs, where the husband was 57 and the surrogate mother was not genetically related. The court introduced a “Triple Test” framework—Genetic, Physical, and Economic—to evaluate the husband’s health, the couple’s physical capacity to care for a child, and their financial ability to secure the child’s future. By directing that the husband must pass this test to obtain an eligibility certificate, the court temporarily relaxed the statutory criteria while deferring the question of constitutional validity to the Supreme Court.

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

When Development Dilutes Deterrence: Rethinking Decriminalization Of Environmental Laws In India

The Brundtland Commission described sustainable development as a model of progress that safeguards the needs of future generations while addressing those of the present.1 This conception was never intended to become a pretext for developing economies to deplete ecological resources in pursuit of economic expansion.... Read more »

Dowry Demand Not Pre-requisite To Cruelty U/S 498A IPC : Supreme Court

This Supreme Court ruling reinforces the broad scope of Section 498A, IPC, by clarifying that a dowry demand is not a prerequisite to establish “cruelty.” The judgment underscores that cruelty can take various forms, including conduct that inflicts grave physical or mental harm, or harassment aimed at coercing the woman’s family to meet unlawful demands.... Read more » Read more »

Cheque Law In Cash Crisis: How P.C. Hari Rewrites Enforceability At The Cost Of Commercial Certainty

The decision of the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari v. Shine Varghese1 presents a significant yet contentious development in the law governing dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While the Court endeavours to harmonize the NI Act with provisions of the Income Tax Act, particularly Section 269SS... 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.