Laws and Policies on Surrogacy

Harleen Kaur

Laws and Policieson SurrogacyComparative Insights from India

123

Harleen KaurCampus Law Centre, Faculty of lawUniversity of DelhiDelhi, India

ISBN 978-981-16-4348-4 ISBN 978-981-16-4349-1 (eBook)https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-4349-1

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer NatureSingapore Pte Ltd. 2021This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whetherthe whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse ofillustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, andtransmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similaror dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in thispublication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt fromthe relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in thisbook are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor theauthors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material containedherein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regardto jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,Singapore

For Harpreet, Dev and Sargun

Acknowledgements

I take this opportunity to express my deep sense of gratefulness to all concernedwho contributed in more than one way to the completion of this book.

My inspiration in writing this book stemmed from my doctrinal thesis on “Rightsof The Surrogate Child with Special Reference to The Commissions for Protectionof Child Rights Act, 2005”, wherein I dealt with the rights of surrogate child underthe ART Bill 2010 and the role played by child commissions in protecting the same.During the time I was pursuing my Ph.D., I realized the market does not offer manypublications on the topic of surrogacy despite surrogacy being a hot topic forsometime now. This book is a major deviation from my Ph.D. thesis as it is basedmore on notifications/proposed surrogacy (regulation) bills which came in existencebut unfortunately failed to take the shape of law owing to various reasons. I am surethis piece of work would be a valuable contribution in proposing a balanced and anunambiguous law in India from the perspective of not only the surrogate child butalso that of the surrogate mother and intended parents while looking into the lawsand policies on surrogacy globally. The book contains limited excerpts from mythesis and is a book with widened horizon on regulation of such practices in India.

In this journey, I am extremely indebted to my mentor (Dr.) B. K. Raina, formerAssociate Professor, Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, whosuccessfully harnessed my research potential and always encouraged me to excel inmy career. My heartfelt and sincere thanks to my parents and in-laws for alwaysproviding me an academically vibrant atmosphere and always being a source ofinspiration in my pursuit towards academic excellence. Interactions with myfather-in-law S. Kuldeep Singh, retired Vice-Chairman, Central AdministrativeTribunal, and former AD&SJ1 and father (Dr.) D. S. Bedi, former AssociateProfessor, Law Centre-I, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, not only sharpenedmy spectrum but also enlightened my vision in this area.

I would also like to thank the officials and staff of library of Faculty of Law,University of Delhi, Indian Law Institute, New Delhi, and National Law University,Dwarka, who helped me by providing valuable research material desired by me and

1Additional district and sessions judge

vii

facilitating access to their respective libraries. I express my heartfelt gratitudetoward various authors whose invaluable work is consulted, referred or quoted inthis book.

I am grateful to my seniors, friends and colleagues for their encouragement andreposing immense trust in me. I take this opportunity to thank my students also fortheir faith in me and waiting eagerly for the release of this venture. My heartfeltthanks to Mr. Aayush Tripathi for his insightful discussions and lending researchassistance in completing this book.

My heartfelt and sincere thanks to my husband S. Harpreet Singh for hisungrudging inspiration in my pursuit toward academic excellence. His unendingmoral support, late-night interactions and providing valuable information for thisbook has no doubt contributed to the quality of this study. I can never forget theencouragement and tolerance exhibited by my children in completion of this book.

I am extremely thankful to Ms. Nupoor Singh and Mr. Daniel Joseph Glaranceof Springer Nature for having belief in my work, for their guidance, for providinghelpful feedbacks and advice in completing the journey. I also express my sincereappreciation for the comments and reviews given by the anonymous reviewers ofSpringer Nature which for sure added new dimensions and quality of the book. Mysincere thanks to the entire team of Springer Nature for their cooperation in com-pletion of this book.

Finally, I express my gratitude to the Almighty for showering his blessing on meand guiding me on this path of academic pursuit.

Dr. Harleen KaurAssistant Professor

Campus Law Centre, Faculty of LawUniversity of Delhi

Delhi India

viii Acknowledgements

Preface

For some, having a child, sharing their love and raising a family is a way ofbringing completeness to their life in a true sense. Unfortunately, however, for somepeople, the inability to rear children becomes extremely heart breaking and no onecan understand the agony of infertile couples/individuals and the pain they gothrough of remaining childless. In recent years, however, with the development ofassisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), cryopreser-vation, egg and sperm donation and Surrogacy, it has become increasingly possibleto procreate without the necessity of heterosexual copulation. However, at the sametime, the success of these technologies has brought about a plethora of vexing andcontroversial legal questions to which answers are not readily available as thesetechnologies by their very nature challenge conventional notions. In fact, todaycross-border surrogacy agreements form part of a rapidly growing medical tourismindustry and despite the significant increase in the number of cross-border surro-gacy arrangements, the reception and regulation of surrogacy is remarkably diversebetween nations.

The international perspective adopted by this book shall offer opportunities tothe concerned, for analyzing the policies and practices being adopted and followedby various nations with respect to surrogacy regulations and associated parenthoodrules, especially in countries such as England, Israel, USA, Australia, Canada andNew Zealand, in addition to other countries such as Japan, Nepal, Thailand andIran. For instance, England and Israel have well-established laws on the determi-nation of parenthood arising from surrogacy arrangements (though both nationsapply somewhat different solutions for establishing and/or transferring parenthood).Surrogacy arrangements in the UK are subject to a framework which is a combi-nation of Surrogacy Arrangements Act 1985 and the Human Fertilization andEmbryology Act 2008 (‘HFEA 2009’) and at the same time, Israel recognizes onlygestational surrogacy vide the Embryo Carrying Agreements (AuthorizationAgreement and Statutes of the Newborn Child) 1996 which made Israel thefirst nation globally to start 'State Regulated Surrogacy' which required everysurrogacy arrangement to be approved by the state. Surrogacy laws of the variousfederal states of the USA that exist vary from one state to another. While one state

ix

provides for a total prohibition with criminal sanctions, there are states whereregulations are moderate, and then, there are states where there is a completefreedom of contract. This wide range of laws has already led to what one can call a,'jurisdictional chaos.' In the USA, commercial surrogacy is prohibited in manystates and in fact, the issue of surrogacy was largely publicized in the USA whenthe first dispute over custody between a surrogate and the intended parents waslitigated and decided in New Jersey in the Matter of Baby M, a defining moment inmodern surrogacy which brought surrogate motherhood to the forefront ofAmerican attention and spurred most US States to enact a legislation on surrogacy.In fact, an identical position was taken in the case of Surrogate ParentingAssociates Inc. v. Commonwealth (704 S.W.2d 209, 214 (Ky. 1986). However,later the Supreme Court of New Jersey unanimously reversed this decision. In fact,as a reaction to the 'Baby M' case, several states, including New Jersey, New York,Michigan and Washington DC, banned paid surrogacy and declared surrogacyagreements to be invalid. However, in the year 2020, New York lifted its ban andlegalized commercial surrogacy by passing the Child Parent Security Act alongwith Surrogates Bill of Rights which came into force with effective from February15, 2021; additionally, Washington, DC, which also overturned its surrogacy ban,in effect since 1993. Similarly, most states in Australia and the Australian CapitalTerritory (ACT) recognize only altruistic surrogacy arrangements, subject toextensive and various requirements of their own legislations. For instance, in NewSouth Wales, surrogacy arrangements are regulated by Surrogacy Act 2010, inSouth Australia, the Family Relationships Act 1975 governs surrogacy, and in theAustralian Capital Territory (ACT), it is the Parentage Act 2004 which deals withsurrogacy arrangements. In Canada and New Zealand, commercial surrogacy hasbeen declared illegal since 2004, although altruistic surrogacy is permitted. InFrance, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Norway and Sweden, surrogacy, whethercommercial or otherwise, is unlawful. In Iran, gestational surrogacy as a treatmentfor infertility is being practiced in some well-known medical institutions in Tehranand some other cities, etc.

This book will provide a comprehensive coverage to various existing laws,policies and regulations which deal with surrogacy and also unravel the latest trendsand developments from around the world as in recent years surrogacy has becomecommon.

It has been witnessed that each country’s different approach to surrogacy hassubjected children so born, to the risk of statelessness, ambiguous legal parentageand identity crises in addition to denial of their basic rights; it also exposes thevulnerability of surrogates and the legal hurdles faced by intended parents inestablishing their parenthood over the surrogate child. There being a wide range ofjudicial pronouncements, this book also attempts to analyze some of the significantcross-border disputes revolving around surrogacy and also explores briefly thejurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on matters of parentage and

x Preface

citizenship for children born of transnational surrogacy while highlighting theapproach adopted to tackle those cases and lessons to be learnt by law makers.

Speaking of India, due to cost-effectiveness and a variety of options available,India has gradually become a hub for people looking to choose surrogacy as anoption since in India surrogacy is neither banned nor completely regulated. Thehighly publicized case of Baby Manji sparked an intense public debate on com-mercial surrogacy in India raising several questions with no clear answers. Moreimportantly, it highlighted the need for an adequate legal framework for theever-growing market of commercial surrogacy in India due to the fact that a largenumber of foreign nationals started eyeing India to fulfill their dream of becomingparents through surrogacy. The Law Commission of India also, in its 228th Report(2009) highlighted ART industry as 'Rs. 25,000 crore pot of gold' and focused onthe need to make a legislation to regulate Assisted Reproductive Technology butrecommended only altruistic surrogacy and not commercial. Indian governmenttaking note of the same proposed various legislations from time to time, in additionto certain notifications/guidelines which were issued for the purposes of regulatingthe practice of surrogacy wherein the endeavor was always to protect the legal andhuman rights of various stakeholders involved in a surrogacy. Therefore, this bookexamines various measures taken by the Indian government for regulating surro-gacy via a display of journey of various legislative measures proposed as well as inexistence and will provide a review of the gaps from the perspective of variousstake holders, viz. the surrogate mother, the surrogate child or the intended parents,in view of various significant cross-border cases.

Since becoming a parent and rearing a family is a basic right of every humanbeing, therefore, it is the prerogative choice of a couple or an individual to becomeor not to become a parent. Surrogacy being a sensitive industry should be wellregulated so that a boon does not become a bane for mankind. A contextualizedapproach to reproductive autonomy instructs that if women wish to act as surrogatesand if commissioning parents wish to form their families through the use of sur-rogacy, then these parties should be permitted to engage themselves in sucharrangements. Speculative arguments and concerns including those based inmorality or fears for the future of the family must not be permitted to take priorityover autonomy based interests of those who seek to procreate through surrogacyarrangements. This book also analyzes the rights of homosexuals, transgenders,singles and live-in couples with respect to procreation and options for surrogacy incontext of countries such as India, USA, UK, Australia, Israel, New Zealand,France and Canada.

This book is an important contribution dealing with various legal and humanrights issues raised by surrogacy while also looking at its proper regulation at anational and international level. Despite varied models being adopted globally, theconcern which remains common to all is to prevent exploitation of the surrogatemother and to also ensure well-being of surrogate child along with putting intoplace, unambiguous parenthood rules. In this context, in India, which is also inprocess of legally regulating the practice with various bills on surrogacy been

Preface xi

proposed from time to time, this book will suggest a robust regulatory frameworklaced with balanced approach drawing inspirations from the laws prevalent globallyand at the same time laws emphasizing the need for a uniform international regu-lation with special reference to the study carried out by the Hague Conference onPrivate International Law.

Delhi, India Harleen Kaur

xii Preface

Contents

1 Introduction to Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1 Infertility and Role of Assisted Reproductive Technology

(ART) Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1.1 Artificial Insemination (AI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1.2 In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer (IVF-ET) . . . . . . 91.1.3 Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.1.4 Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101.1.5 Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.2 Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111.2.1 Kinds of Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1.3 Evolution of Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.4 Surrogacy: Issues and Complexities Involved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1.4.1 Legal Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.4.2 Moral and Ethical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

1.5 Advantages of Surrogacy Over Other Forms of ART . . . . . . . . . 331.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2 Surrogacy: Laws and Policies Across the Globe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.1 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

2.1.1 The Evolution of the Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.1.2 Embryo Carrying Agreements (Authorization

Agreement & Statutes of the Newborn Child) 1996 . . . . 402.2 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.1 The Evolution of the Assisted Human ReproductionAct 2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2.2.2 Contract Law and Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452.2.3 Family Law and Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

2.3 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462.3.1 Queensland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472.3.2 South Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

xiii

2.3.3 Tasmania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502.3.4 Victoria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.3.5 Western Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.3.6 New South Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522.3.7 Australian Capital Territory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

2.4 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542.5 Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 602.6 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.7 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612.8 United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 622.9 New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672.10 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 682.11 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692.12 Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702.13 Other Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 712.14 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

3 Surrogacy in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753.1 Reproductive Tourism in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753.2 Regulation and Enforceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

3.2.1 Constitutional Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 773.2.2 The Indian Contract Act, 1872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.3 The Indian Council of Medical Research, National Guidelinesfor Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinicsin India (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

3.4 The Law Commission of India 228th Report on ‘Need forLegislation to Regulate Assisted Reproductive TechnologyClinics as Well as Rights and Obligations of Parties to aSurrogacy.’ (August 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

3.5 The Assisted Reproductive Technology(Regulation) Bill, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823.5.1 Features of the Draft ART Bill, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 823.5.2 Critical Analysis of the Draft ART Bill, 2010 . . . . . . . . 86

3.6 Ministry of Home Affairs New Visa Regulations for PeopleSeeking Surrogacy Issued on July 9, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

3.7 The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Instructions toProhibit Commercial Surrogacy in India Vide LetterDated 4.11.2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

3.8 The Assisted Reproductive Technology(Regulation) Bill, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

3.9 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933.9.1 Features of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 . . . . . 933.9.2 General Weakness, Ambiguities and Contradictions

of the Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

xiv Contents

3.10 102nd Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on theSurrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

3.11 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053.12 Recommendations of the Select Committee on the Surrogacy

(Regulation) Bill, 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053.13 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

3.13.1 Features of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 . . . . . 1093.13.2 Drawbacks of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 . . . . 116

3.14 Judicial Approach in India Toward Cross-Border SurrogacyCases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

3.15 Recent Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1223.16 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

4 Surrogacy Arrangements: The Stakeholders Perspectives . . . . . . . . . 1254.1 From the Perspective of Surrogate Mother Concerns . . . . . . . . . . 1254.2 Proposed Surrogacy Bills in India Vis-a-Vis Rights of the

Surrogate Mother . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1254.2.1 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1274.2.2 102nd Report of the Parliamentary Standing

Committee on the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016 . . . 1284.2.3 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1314.2.4 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

4.3 From the Perspective of Surrogate Child Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . 1334.3.1 Cross-Borders Surrogacy Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1374.3.2 Trafficking, Physical Abuse and Abandonment of the

Surrogate Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1484.4 Proposed Surrogacy Bills in India Vis-a-Vis Rights of the

Surrogate Child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1504.4.1 Indian Council for Medical Research Guidelines

(ICMR), 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1514.4.2 The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation)

Bill, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524.4.3 228th Law Commission Report on Surrogacy . . . . . . . . 1524.4.4 The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation)

Bill, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1534.4.5 The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation)

Bill, 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1574.4.6 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1584.4.7 102nd Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on

Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1594.4.8 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1604.4.9 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1604.4.10 Recent Judicial and Legislative Developments

in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

Contents xv

4.5 From the Perspective of Intended Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1684.5.1 Intended Parents and Their Right to Procreation in

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1694.6 Proposed Surrogacy Bills in India Vis-a-Vis Intended Parents . . . . 170

4.6.1 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1704.6.2 102nd Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee

on the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill 2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1714.6.3 Recommendations of the Select Committee on the

Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1724.6.4 The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

4.7 Model Surrogacy Agreement Expected in India . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1744.8 Need of an International Regulation for Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . 1774.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

5 Homosexuals, Third Genders, Live in Couples, Singles and TheirRight to Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1895.1 Right to Procreation as a Human Right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1895.2 Homosexuals, Third Genders, Live-In Couples, Singles

and Their Right to Surrogacy: (I) International Scenario . . . . . . . 1915.2.1 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1925.2.2 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935.2.3 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1945.2.4 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1945.2.5 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1955.2.6 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1965.2.7 Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1975.2.8 Ukraine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985.2.9 Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1985.2.10 New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

5.3 National Scenario: India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2005.3.1 Homosexuals/Transgender Persons and Their Right

to Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2035.3.2 Live-In Couples and Their Right to Surrogacy . . . . . . . . 2085.3.3 Singles and Their Right to Surrogacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210

6 Conclusion and Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2136.1 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2136.2 Suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

Reports/Guidelines/Statutes/Conventions/Treaties and Agreements. . . . . 231

xvi Contents

About the Author

Dr. Harleen Kaur is an Assistant Professor of Law at Campus Law Centre,Faculty of Law, Delhi University. She holds an LL.B. (Gold Medalist) and LL.MDegree from the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. She obtained her Ph.D. fromthe Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. She is a recipient of various awards such asGold Medal Hiralal Daga Memorial Medal, P. G. Krishnan Memorial Prize, LawUnion Prize for securing first position in order of merit in three consecutive years ofLL.B. and G. Pershad Memorial Prize for B.A. (Pass) in Miranda House, Universityof Delhi in addition to the Academic Excellence Award for the year 2019 by IswarSaran Post Graduate College (University of Allahabad) and Droit Penale: IndianLaw Journal On Crime And Criminology, Legal Path Foundation. She has to hercredit many papers, on diverse legal issues, published in reputed journals. She hasalso authored chapters in various books. Her areas of interest are criminal law (IPCand CrPC), property law and human rights and surrogacy. Dr. Harleen has deliverednumerous lectures at various prestigious institutions and universities. She has alsochaired sessions in national and international workshops, conferences, seminars andis on the editorial boards of law journals.

xvii

Abbreviations

A.2d Atlantic Reporter, Second SeriesACHPR African Charter on Human and People’s RightACHR American Convention on Human RightsACRWC African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the ChildACT Australian Capital TerritoryAI Artificial InseminationAID Artificial Insemination DonorAIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromeAIH Artificial Insemination Homologous or HusbandAIHC All India High Court CasesAIR All India ReporterAll E.R All England Law ReportsALT Andhra Law TimesAP Andhra PradeshART Assisted Reproductive Technologyart. ArticleASRM The American Society for Reproductive MedicineBBA Bachpan Bachao AndolanCAI Confused or Combination Artificial InseminationCal App. Rept California Appellate ReportCal. Rptr 2d California Reporter, Second SeriesCanLII Canadian Legal Information InstituteCARA Central Adoption Resource AgencyCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination Against WomenCOCA Care of Children ActCPC Civil Procedure CodeCPCR Commissions for Protection of Child RightsCPSA The Child Parent Security ActCRC Convention on the Rights of Child

xix

Cri. LJ Criminal Law JournalDLR Dominium Law ReportsDRC Declaration on the Rights of the Childe.g. Exempli Gratia (for the sake of example)ECAC European Convention on the Adoption of ChildrenECECR European Convention on the Exercise of Children’s RightsECHR European Court of Human Rightsed. Editededn. EditionEPW Economic and Political WeeklyESCR Economic Social and Cultural RightsET Embryo Transferetc et. ceteraEur. Ct. H.R European Court of Human RightsEWHC High Court of Justice England and WalesF.2d Federal Reporter, Second SeriesFCU Family Code of UkraineFIR First Information ReportFPRO Federal Provincial Relations OfficeFRO Family Responsibility OfficeGIFT Gamete Intra Fallopian TransferGNP North Gauten High CourtHarv. L. Rev Harvard Law ReviewHCCH Hague Conference/Conference de la Haye (Hague

Conference)HCJ High Court of JusticeHFEA Human Fertilization and Embryology ActHIV Human Immuno Deficiency VirusHMGA Hindu Minority and Guardianship ActHRTC Human Reproductive Technology CouncilIbid Ibidem (in the same place)ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICCW Indian Council for Child WelfareICI Intra Cervical InseminationICMR Indian Council for Medical ResearchICS International Commercial SurrogacyICSI Intra Cytoplasmic Sperm Injectionie. id est (that is )Ind L.J. Indiana Law JournalIPC Indian Penal CodeIUI Intrauterine InseminationIVF In Vitro FertilizationIVF-ET In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo TransferJILI Journal of Indian Law InstituteJSOG Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology

xx Abbreviations

Kar LJ Karnatka Law JournalKLT Kerala law TimesKY KentuckyLGBTQI+ Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender, Queer, Intersex

etc.Mad LJ Madras Law JournalMHA Ministry of Home AffairsMLJ Malayan Law Journal ReportsMTP Medical Termination of PregnancyN.E.2d North Eastern Reporter, Second SeriesN.J New Jersey ReportsN.W.2d North Western Reporter, Second SeriesN.Y New York ReportsN.Y.S New York SupplementNAMS National Academy of Medical ResearchNCC National Council for the Child.NCPCR National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights.NGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNHMRC National Health and Medical Research CouncilNRIs Non-Resident IndiansNSB National Surrogacy BoardNSW New South WalesOCIs Overseas Citizens of IndiaP PagePa. Super. Ct Superior court of PennsylvaniaPara ParagraphPIL Public Interest LitigationPIOs Persons of Indian OriginPNDT Pre Natal Diagnostic TechniquesPOCSO Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesQLD QueenslandRTAC Reproductive Technology Accreditation CommitteeRTE Right To EducationRWA Residents Welfares. Association SectionS.A. San AntonioS.W.2d South Western Reporter, Second SeriesSA South AfricaSAARC South Asian Association for Regional CooperationSC Supreme CourtSCC Supreme Court CasesSCJ Science Council of JapanSCPCR State Commissions for Protection of Child RightsSess.Cas. Session CaseSGHCF Singapore High Court (Family Division)

Abbreviations xxi

SLP Special Leave PetitionSOCA Status of Children ActSPA Surrogate Parenting Associatess. SectionsSSB State Surrogacy BoardsSupra AboveTenn Tennessee ReportTex. Int’l L.J Texas International Law JournalU. Cin. L. Rev. University of Cincinnati Law ReviewU. Pa. J. Int’l L. The University of Pennsylvania Journal of International

LawU.S.L.W United States Law Week (publication)UDHR Universal Declaration of Human RightsUK United KingdomUNCRC United Nation Convention on the Rights of the ChildUNDRC United Declaration on the Rights of the Childv. VersusWA Western AustraliaWash & Lee L. Rev Washington and Lee Law ReviewWFCLO Worst Forms of Child Labour ConventionWis. L. Rev Wisconsin Law ReviewZIFT Zygote Intra Fallopian Transfer

xxii Abbreviations

List of Cases

A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam)A.D.T v. The United Kingdom, 35765/97 [2000] ECHR 402Abhijit Iyer Mitra v. Union of India W.P. (C) 6371/2020Anonymous v. Anonymous N.Y.S. 246 2d 835 (Sup.Ct.1964)B. K. Parthasarathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2000 A.P. 156Baby M 537A. 2d 1227 (N.J.1988)Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India AIR (2008) 13 SCC 518Balaz v. Anand Municipality, no. 3020, Special Civil Application, Oral Order( GUJ HC II November 2009)Belsito v. Clerk 644 NE 2d 760 (1994)Bowers v. Hardwick 478 U.S. 186 (1986)Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, 61 Cal App 4th 1410, 72 Cal Rptr 2d 280 (Cal Ct App)Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 435 Mass 285 (2001)D. Veluswami v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479Davis v. Davis 842 S.W.2d 588, 591 (Tenn. 1992)Doornbos v. Doornbos139 N.E. 2d 844 (1956)Dr. Hema Vijay Menon v. State of Maharashtra WP No.3288, decided on 22 July,2015Dudgeon v. United Kingdom 45 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1981)Elkapalli Latchaiah v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2001 (5) ALT 410Ex Parte WH (2011) 6 SA 514 (GNP) para 67Francis Coralie Mullin v. the Administration, Union Territory of Delhi (1981)1SCC 608Gursky v. Gursky 242 NY.S.2d 406 (Sup. Ct. 1963)Hodas v. Morin, 442 Mass 544 (2004)Huddlestone v. Infertility Centre of America Inc. 700 A.2d 453 (Pa. Super. Ct.1997)Itai Arad-Pinkas et. al. v. The Authorization Committee for Agreements forCarrying Fetuses et. al. (27.2.20).HCJ 781/15 Supreme Court of IsraelJan Balaz v. Anand Municipality and Ors, AIR 2010 Guj. 21Jayashree Wad v. Union of India, Writ Petition 95 of 2015

xxiii

Jaycee B v. Superior Court 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996)JF v. DB, 879 NE 2d 740 (2007)Johnson v. Calvert5 Cal. 4th 84, 851 P.2d 776 (1993)Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018) 2 SCC 189K. Kalaiselvie v. Chennai Port Trust 2013 (2) KLT 567K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India 2017 10 SCC 1Kharak Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1963 SC 1295Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003)Maclennan v. Maclennan Sess. Cas. 105 (1958)Matter of Baby M, case 537 A2d 1227 (NJ 1988)Modinos v. Cyprus 259 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1993)Nachmani v. Nachmani 50(4) P.D. 661 (Isr.) 1996National legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5 SCC 438Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4321Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT of Delhi, (2010) Cri. L.J. 94Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1988)Obergefell v. Hodges 83 U.S.L.W. 4592 (June 26, 2015)Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180Orford v. Orford 58 D.L.R.251 (1921)P Geetha v. The Kerala Livestock Development Board Ltd 2015 (1) KLJ 494People v. Sorensen 68 Cal, 2d 280 (1968)Pooja Jignesh Doshi v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC online Bom 1433Public Prosecutor v. Dato’ Seri Anwar Bin Ibrahim (2001) 3 M.L.J. 193Quebec (Attorney General) v. A. 2013 SCCR. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264R.: IJ (A Child) [2011] EWHC 291 (Fam)R.E.L. v. E.L 1All E.R.141 (1949)Rama Pandey v. Union of India, 2015 SCC online Del 10484Rasiklal Chhagalal Mehta v. Unknown AIR 1982, Guj. 193Re S (Parental order) [2009] EWHC 3146 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1156Re X (A Child) (Surrogacy: Time Limit) [2014] E.W.H.C. 3135 (Fam)Re X and Y (foreign surrogacy) [2008] EWHC 3030 (Fam)Re X [2020] EWHC 39Re Z (No. 2) (2016) EWHC 1191 (Fam)Re: A (Surrogacy s. 54 Criteria) [2020] EWHC 1426 (Fam.)Re: L (A Minor) [2010] EWHC 3146 (Fam)Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535 (1941)Slater v. Slater 1 All ER 246 (1953)Stephanie Joan Becker v. State (2013) 12 SCC 786Strand v. Strand 78 N. Y.S. 2d 390 (1948)Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1Sunil Babu Pant v. Nepal Government Writ No. 917 of the year 2064 BS (2007AD)Supreme Court of Nepal, Case 072-WO-0119 (July 14, 2016) (Nepal)

xxiv List of Cases

Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation, (2014) 1 SCC 1Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc. v. Armstrong 704 S.W.2d 209 (KY1986)Sushma Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWP No. 4509 of 2020UKM v. Attorney-General [2018] SGHCF 18Union of India & Another v. Jan Balaz and others. Special Leave to Appeal (civil)No. 31639, Supreme court of India, 2009)Union of India & Anr v. Jan Balaz and Others, Civil Appeal No. 8714/2010 Orderdated 25 Nov 2009)Veluswami v. D. Patchaiammal AIR 2011 SC 479Woodward v. Commissioner Woodward, 760 N.E. 2d at 259

List of Cases xxv