REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Vijaya Kumari S Appellant

V/S

UNION OF INDIA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MAXWELL VS. MURPHY [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY VS. TUNNICLIFF [REFERRED TO]
L'OFFICE CHERIFIEN DES PHOSPHATES VS. YAMASHITA SHINNIHON STEAMSHIP CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ANUSHKA RENGUNTHWAR V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KESHAVAN MADHAVA MENON VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSAL IMPORTS AGENCY ANOTHER VICTORY TRADERS VS. CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS:CHIEF CONTROLLER OF IMPORTS AND EXPORTS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VISHNU RAMCHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
AMIREDDI RAJA GOPALA RAO VS. AMIREDDI SITHARAMAMMA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA PRITHIPAL SINGH RAM MEHAR RAJ KUMAR DELHI CATTLE BREEDING FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. RAGHUBIR SINGH :UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NAVJYOTI COOP GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
R RAJAGOPAL ALIAS R R GOPAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
K GOPINATHAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JAVED VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ZILE SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
S L SRINIVASA JUTE TWINE MILLS P LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
BABY MANJI YAMADA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MONNET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI COTTON AND GENERAL MILLS CO VS. INCOME TAX COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (READ.) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
X VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
A (MOTHER OF X) VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions and one interlocutory application arise out of a set of similar but slightly differentiated facts. The common legal question arising out of them is the application of the age-restrictions on 'intending couples' under Sec. 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity).

(2.) The Act came into force with effect from 25/1/2022. The objects of the Act are the regulation of the practice and process of surrogacy and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The relevant definitions of the Act read as under:

(3.) Presently, we are concerned with Sec. 4(iii)(c)(I). The same states that on and from the date of commencement of the Act, i.e., 25/1/2022, an intending couple requires an 'eligibility certificate' issued by the appropriate authority certifying that the intending couple are married and between the age of 23 to 50 years in case of the female and between 26 to 55 years in case of the male on the day of certification. The appropriate authority under Sec. 36 of the Act has to consider and grant or reject any application under clause (vi) of Sec. 3 and sub-clauses (a) to (c) of clause (iii) of Sec. 4 within a period of ninety days which also includes the power to issue eligibility certificate.

Click here to view full judgment.

VIJAYA KUMARI S Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address