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

Sadakat Kotwar Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 Scc Online Sc 1046

The Supreme Court observed that the intention of an accused can be ascertained by the part of the body where the accused chose to assault the victim and the nature of injury inflicted upon the victim by the accused, and that no one can enter the mind of the accused Read more »

Reconciling Conflicting Supreme Court Judgments: High Courts Must Harmonize Rather Than Choose

Judicial precedents play a crucial role in shaping legal principles and ensuring consistency in the application of the law. However, there are instances where two Supreme Court judgments appear to contradict each other, creating a complex situation for High Courts. How should High Courts proceed in such cases? Can they Read more »

SC Clarifies the limitation period under 468 of CR.P.C

In Ghanshyam Soni v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 INSC 803), the Supreme Court held that for Section 468 CrPC, the limitation period runs from the date a complaint is filed, not when the Magistrate takes cognizance. A timely 498A IPC complaint cannot be dismissed as time-barred due to court 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.