XXXXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concepts of "right of privacy, right of liberty and the right of dignity", have been the subject of authoritative pronouncements by Constitutional Benches of the Apex Court recently. (See K.S.Puttaswamy v. Union of India [2017 (10) SCC 1]; Navtej Singh Johar and others v. Union of India [AIR 2018 SC 4321]). One of the facets of the said right pops up for consideration in the present case.

(2.) The petitioner is a divorcee. The decree, on mutual consent, was passed on 27.11.2020. Thereafter, on 29.01.2021, the petitioner opted to get conceived by In Vitro Fertilization (in short, "IVF") procedure. Ext.P2 is a copy of the treatment summary issued from the Fertility Centre. The identity of the sperm donor has not been disclosed to the petitioner, and is kept anonymous. In Ext.P2 treatment summary, the reason for undergoing the procedure is stated thus:-"single parent". The concern of the petitioner relates to fulfilment of certain formalities for registration of the birth of the child, on delivery.

(3.) The format for registration of births and deaths is prescribed by the State of Kerala under the Kerala Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The form contains columns which require disclosure of the name of the father of the child. The petitioner contends that she cannot be required to provide the name of the father, for reasons more than one viz., (i) The identity of the sperm donor is kept anonymous and has not been and could not be disclosed even to the petitioner, (ii) such requirement intrudes upon her right of privacy, liberty and dignity.