Posthumous Reproduction Not Prohibited By Law – Delhi High Court

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Posthumous Reproduction Not...

In W.P.(C) 15159/2021, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recognized preserved reproductive genetic material as inheritable “property” under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, permitting the release of a deceased unmarried man’s biological genetic material to his parents for surrogacy, emphasizing that his consent for preservation extended to its posthumous use. The court noted the absence of provisions on posthumous reproduction in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, 2021, and the Surrogacy Regulation Act, 2021, and directed the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to consider formulating comprehensive guidelines or legislation. Additionally, the release of genetic material was strictly conditioned on ethical compliance and non-commercial use, ensuring that it aligns with legal and moral standards while addressing the evolving legal framework surrounding reproductive rights and inheritance.

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

Youth Bar Association Vs. Union of India, W.P.(CRL.) NO.68 of 2016

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with a Writ Petition in this landmark decision issued a slew of directions to make First Information Reports (FIRs) available to the accused and the public at large. The Hon’ble Court directed that all police stations shall upload FIRs within 24 hours except in cases of sensitive nature involving... Read more » Read more »

Neeraj Sud & Anr. Vs. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr. (2024 INSC 825)

In Neeraj Sud & Anr. vs. Jaswinder Singh (Minor) & Anr. (2024 INSC 825), the Supreme Court clarified that mere deterioration of a patient’s condition after surgery does not automatically indicate medical negligence. To establish negligence, it must be proven that the doctor failed to exercise due care or lacked the necessary skill or qualifications... Read more » Read more »

Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810

In the case of Vidyasagar Prasad vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810, the Supreme Court upheld the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor that defaulted on loan repayments to UCO Bank. The NCLT had approved the CIRP application, prompting the Corporate Debtor to appeal to the NCLAT.... Read more » 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.