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

Shivaji chintappa patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, Air 2021 Sc 1249

The court laid down certain guidelines which must be followed before a case against an accused can be fully established: (a) circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is drawn must be established fully, (b) there should be consistency between the facts established and the hypothesis of guilt of the accused, Read more »

Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 266

The court discusses the distinction between section 34 and 149 of IPC. Common object does not necessarily require proof of a prior meeting of minds or pre-consort, whereas common intention suggests activity in concert and presupposes the existence of a prepared plan, implying a prior meeting of minds. However, both Read more »

Sangeet Vs. State Of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452.

The court observed that, it is a common misperception that a person facing a life sentence has an unassailable right to be released after serving 14 or 20 years in jail. No such right exists for the prisoner. Subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 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.