I am coming across new reports silicon industry majors Apple and Facebook are paying their female employees to cryo-preserve their eggs. Cryo-preservation is a process whereby bio-material can be frozen and can be used at a later point of time. Apple and Facebook are indirectly encouraging their female employees to postpone their family plans, so that they would able to better concentrate on their work. Also it saves the companies of all the maternity benefits immediately.

Global studies show that the quality of the eggs goes down with advancing age. Several females have to turn to use an egg donor or a surrogate mother for enhancing the possibility of having a child. Most women who try to have family after the age of 35 experience problems to do so in the natural way.

I am learning that the Apple and Facebook are willing to afford USD $ 20,000 for their female employees to freeze their eggs for future use. I do not support this view of several reasons. Clearly, the companies are more interested in having their employees stay with them during their 20s and 30s, not deviating to family life. They are happy to provide the incentives to ensure that the employees do not take their maternity leave, or be a financial commitment in the rolls during that period.

The companies are actually encouraging their women employees to postpone having their family. Professionally successful women find themselves in a difficult position to have a family. Most would be required to postpone expanding their family, fearing less importance at the work-place or having to lose out on the professional growth. Now with this kind of an encouragement in place, most women would prefer to carry on with their well rewarding work.

The companies do not take into account the possible mental trauma that the female employees may go through if they are not able to achieve pregnancy in natural way. They would be required to resort to IVF treatments to help them have a child. The success rates in IVF, though has improved dramatically in the recent years is not 100%. That would mean that there is no 100% guarantee that the eggs that are cryo-preserved would actually result in having family. There is a huge risk of the eggs not resulting in a safe child and they might be required to use an egg donor.

Another issue is that the age gap between the child and the parents would be abnormal increase. That is another very worrying part of acting against the rule of nature. 

I sincerely hope other companies do nor follow this tradition. And I also sincerely hope that the employees are only take it something like an insurance and not an actual option to postpone their family.

baby selling child trafficking

The Bangalore Nandhi Layout Police had launched a case against one Mr. K T Gurumurthy on charges of child trafficking, and kidnap and sale of newborns based on a complaint by one of his clients. K T Gurumurthy is running Srushti Global Trust in Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore.

Gurumurthy claims himself to be fertility specialist and embryologist. He had promised one of clients, Dhan Bosco to arrange a surrogate mother for Rs. 3,50,000 so that the couple could have a child genetically related to them. Dhan Bosco had provided his sperm sample in the year 2008. After about 7 months Gurumurthy informed the couple that a girl child is born to them. Gurumurthy did not justify the early birth of the child.

The child had later suffered some ailments. Depressed over the illness of the child, the wife of Dhan Bosco passed away. Dhan Bosco then took a DNA test which showed he is not genetically related to the child. It is then he learnt Gurumurthy had cheated him. Aggrieved by this, he approached the police authorities and charged with kidnap and trafficking of the new born for the purpose of sale, cheating, threatening and criminal intimidation.

Gurumurthy is currently facing another prosecution on charges of cheating childless couples, after promising them IVF treatment. The earlier was launched in January 2014. Gurumurthy is now under police custody for a week’s time.

This come right in the time when an Australian couple had abandoned a child born through surrogacy in India, while taking its twin.



An Australian Couple have reportedly abandoned a child born through surrogacy in India, while taking one of the twins home. The revelation was made by Australian Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant in a family law seminar in Australia this week.

The incident reportedly took place in 2012. An Australian Couple had taken up a surrogacy arrangement in India and it had resulted in the birth of twin children. The Australian Couple had chosen to take only one child born through the surrogacy arrangement, while deciding to abandon the other twin. The Officials at the Australian Consulate had knowledge of this decisions and have reportedly tried persuading the couple against it. Also, an Australian MP is said to have pressured the Australian High Commission to allow the Couple to take only the baby of the couple’s choice. The couple had already one child before the surrogacy arrangement, and they wanted only one child of the opposite sex. It is not revealed which gender the couple had chosen. Also, another person claiming to be friend of the Australian Couple seems to have taken custody of the child, while it is not clear if the claim is true and if there was any commercial interest.

This shocking news follows the Thailand Baby Gammy news, where another Australian Couple had taken up surrogacy in Thailand and had deserted one of the twin children, as the child was affected by down-syndrome.

Abandonment of a child is an offence in India

Abandonment of a child is punishable under Indian Law under Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The relevant provision is extracted hereunder:

317. Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by parent or person having care of it.—Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, or having the care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanation.—This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for murder or culpable homicide, as the case may be, if the child dies in consequence of the exposure.

If the facts as provided are true, the acts of abandonment of the child by the Commissioning Couple clearly fall within the above provision of law, which warrants 7 years of imprisonment. The Australian Commissioning Couple have initiated the surrogacy arrangement, but have chosen to take custody of only one child and abandon the other. The mere act of abandoning the child is clearly an offence.

Australian High Commission must have acted

The Australian High Commission is said to have full knowledge of the fact that the couple are trying to abandon one of the twins born through surrogacy. As is prudent to any logical reasoning, the Australian High Commission must have informed the Indian Authorities about this issue and must have taken steps to have registered a case with the local police about the act, rather than merely trying to orally persuade the couple.

I am not sure which State in Australia the couple reside. But almost every state law in Australia would have a provision which makes the act of abandoning a child an offence. The couple would be liable to prosecution in Australia also.

Welfare of child undermined

There is no doubt that the welfare of the children has been undermined. It is unbelievable that the officials who had knowledge of the information have failed to inform the Indian or Australian Authorities. Abandonment of children and possible trafficking of children is a very serious allegation. Reckless, but intentional, decision by the commissioning parents clearly makes them unfit to be good parents for a child.

Need for International Intervention in Cross Border Surrogacy Arrangements

In every surrogacy arrangement, a new life is brought into being only on the instance of a couple who wish to have a family. The act of the Australian Couples, be it Baby Gammy or the Indian Case, is even unimaginable and inhuman. The Hauge Conference is exploring the possibility of having a convention on international surrogacy arrangement. Such an effort is most required to deal these scenarios with iron hands. The international community must come forward to ensure that this act is never repeated.

The BBC Tamil Interview on Australian Couple who have deserted a child born through surrogacy in India:

One interesting question that was posed was whether the surrogate mother can compel the couple to take the child in case they refuse. I forgot to mention Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, I am covering it in the next blog post.


News reports are out hinting that the Maharashtra Medical Council is planning to come up guidelines for surrogacy arrangements. These guidelines shall have an impact on all surrogacy arrangements taking place within Maharashtra. Maharashtra Medical Council is a Statutory Body, established by the law of the State i.e. Maharashtra Medical Council Act 1965. Mumbai, the capital city of State of Maharashtra accounts for a large chunk of all surrogacies in India. There has always been much criticism that Mumbai clinics had made surrogacy very commercial. Many research workers and NGOs had earlier pointed to crude way of selection of surrogate mothers from slums in Mumbai, and the possibility of being exploitation.

Earlier Cases of violation from Mumbai

There have been blatant cases of violation from Mumbai. In 2012, A popular doctor known for international surrogacy arrangements is now facing charges for repeated using a very young girl for egg donation in the year 2012. The charges state that she had been donating eggs at the same hospital even when she was a minor. The girl had died after her last egg donation. She was aged 18 years at the time of the death. The doctor has now obtained a pre-arrest bail before a sessions court. Her employer is also facing charges of abduction along with the doctor.

In April 2014, several clinics in Mumbai had been seen flouting the Ministry of External Affairs rules by providing medical services for foreign commissioning couples, who have not obtained medical surrogacy visa. The Surrogacy Guidelines by the Maharashtra Medical Council may curtail any possible conflicts with regard to surrogacy arrangements.

Surrogacy Guidelines by Maharashtra Medical Council Laudable

This is the first time that a State Government in India has come up trying to regulate the surrogacy arrangements in India. State Governments had done little with regard to surrogacy arrangements or evern with regard to IVF centre. Earlier, the Tamil Nadu Government Directorate of Medical Services had required that all clinics providing IVF services to be registered with them. There is no clear number as to how many clinics had acually registered with them.

This move of the Maharashtra Medical Council is certainly laudable. Medical Councils and State governments need to take an active role that the IVF clinics stick to their core medical services, and not be involved with surrogacy arrangments as an agency.

Surrogacy Guidelines not available in the official website of the Maharashtra Medical Council

The surrogacy guidelines drafted by the Maharashtra Medical Council is not available at their official website. I have not had a chance to go through them yet. I shall keep the blog updated once I read through the Guidelines.


I am coming across news-reports telling me that the Winter Session of the Parliament might actually be passing the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, 2013 (ART Bill). The Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill is pending for more than 4 years now. The ART Bill has undergone atleast two revisions, but there still seemed several loopholes the last time I read through it. I did not get the idea that I was reading the final draft of the ART Bill and several changes to Bill might be appropriate. I shall certainly try to make a blog-post on the possible improvements to the Bill that would be more practical for the given scenario.

To be frank, I am not convinced of the news report. There have been several instances in the past where the newspapers reported that the Bill was going to be introduced in the Indian Parliament for debate, but nothing actually came out of it.

If India is passing the ART Bill, it could be changing the infertility scenario globally.

Yes, I mean every word of it. After India restricted commercial surrogacy for married couples only, I came across several couples who were not able to afford commercial surrogacy in the US and the same time, did not want to look at a different destination. India had created a niche for itself by being safe and secure as far as commerical surrogacy was concerned. When India disallowed commercial surrogacy for gay couples, it was indeed a big blow for several of them. What I am trying to point out is, Indian Fertility Laws mattered and matters even more now globally.

If India is now coming up with a special legislation, it will matter to a lot of infertile couple around the globe. The fertility laws in India would attract a lot of attention and would have an impact on the way have their family.

India may be the first country to allow commercial surrogacy by way of a legislation

Barring Isreal, I am not sure which other nation has actually passed a law that allows commercial surrogacy. In most nations where legislations allowing surrogacy has been passed, commercial surrogacy has been made illegal. In many conservative states surrogacy arrangements by themselves are considered to be a criminal offence, irrespective of whether it is altruistic or commercial surrogacy. Surrogacy has been subject of political and social criticism in many nations and the Governments have always had a tough time with the laws pertaining to surrogacy.

Given this scenario, if india passes the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill, India may be first country to actually allow commercial surrogacy arrangements by way of a legislation.

The following issues may be covered in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill

  • Age limits for the surrogate mothers
  • Minimum compensation payable to the surrogate mothers in surrogacy arrangements
  • Eligibility criterion for International Couples to take up surrogacy arrangments in India

I hear that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2013, has been cleared after rounds of discussions with various ministries and other stakeholders and will be presented before the Union Cabinet soon. Secretary (Health Research) VM Katoch is said to have spoken at a national conference on surrogacy of the same.

I hope that the wait for the Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill is worth it and that the law brings in regulation for the protection of the surrogate mother and the commissioning couples.



Thailand’s changing political scenarios may affect surrogacy as well. The coup leader turned Prime-Minister, Gen. Prayuth Chan-ocha, has announced the policy of the new government. Among other issues that had been discussed by him, he has announced that his new government vows to abolish the commercial surrogacy industry in Thailand. He had also stated that a new law shall be passed to make illegal the commercial surrogacy arrangements in Thailand. Even worse, the law might be expected by end of 2014.

I have no idea about the domestic surrogacy arrangements in Thailand. There was never much news about it and it is understandable that the numbers are lesser. But international surrogacy arrangements in Thailand did have an impact on the globe. A lot of couple from Australia and US had moved to Thailand after the India had tried to regulate the surrogacy for foreigners. India visa rules prohibited surrogacy for gay couples, unmarried couple who are in de-facto relationship and couples who were married for less than 2 years. India also required that the country of origin of the commissioning parents allow surrogacy arrangements in order to take up surrogacy arrangements in India. These rules in India made Thailand as a viable option for international surrogacy arrangements. A lot of medical tourism companies even promoted Thailand as a safe place for surrogacy, even though the Government had not acknowledged it. There is in fact Thailand medical council resolution prohibiting surrogacy. Even with such regulations, the Thailand clinics offered surrogacy services pretty openly. Unassumingly a lot of desiring parents took up surrogacy in Thailand.

Thailand new governement’s view over surrogacy arrangement has startling effects.

We are witnessing increasing reports of parents who had children through surrogacy in Thailand and unable to leave the country after the birth of the child. There is no clear statement from the Thailand Government as to how many parents have been stranded with their children in Thailand at the moment. Given the number of incidents reported in the papers, the numbers seem fairly high. Somehow the regulations in that country does not give a window period for enforcing the new ban.

Thailand should give a window period for those who had taken up surrogacy earlier

We all remember India’s legal conflicts when a similar issue arose here. When the Home Ministry came out with regulations for granting visa for surrogacy for international patentients prohibiting single/gay couple, India gave a window period of atleast 6 months. It was unofficially extended for another 2 months. I really hope that Thailand gives a similar window period for enforcement of the new rules, in interest of those who have taken up surrogacy arrangment. It is disheartening that childless couple wishing to have a family should be put through so much of a struggle, for just trying to realize their basic dream of parenthood.


Surrogacy could be one of the biggest boon for the mankind. Scientific advances in reproductive medicine had reached a peak when a woman who cannot carry a child, could still have a genetic child of her own. An unimaginable scientific improvement, coupled with a positive law, changed the lives of millions of couples and single parents. International surrogacy become popular with childless couple taking up borderless journies for realizing their parenthood dreams. As alwasy, the biggest boon for the mankind can of course be turned into a most cruel weapon.

Overseas surrogacy has always been a subject of the controversy for serveral reasons including possible exploitation of surrogate mothers, surrogacy being turned into a factory in developing countries, lower medical costs, difficulty in returning back to home nation, legal compexities, conservative religious views etc. However, surrogacy is now found repeatedly in the news for the most hateful reasons.

The recent new reports about the surrogacy scandal in Thailand is truly shocking and disgusting. As a professional involved in fertility law for almost a decade, I find it truly distressful that surrogacy arrangements could be exploited to this extent. We have had other similar situations earlier. I distinctly remember of the case of Theresa Erickson, the US attorney, who had been charged of a baby selling racket. I remember the case of an Australian gay Couple who had taken surrogacy in Russia, in actuality were phidophilles and had sexually exploited their own son. Few more cases linger in my mind, but the Thailand case is much more than expected.

Thailand as Surrogacy Destination

Thailand emerged as a popular option for surrogacy after India avoided commercial surrogacy for single parents. Indian Visa rules required that the commissioning parents must be a man and a woman married for a period of atleast two years to be granted visa for taking up surrogacy arrangement. A lot of couples turned to Thailand, which was still unregulated and where anything was done. There was never a whisper about the legality about surrogacy arrangements in Thailand. In fact, the turn into this new direction was prompted by several international surrogacy agencies who claimed Thailand to be perfectly safe and legal. But, it turned out to be otherwise. News now emerge that commercial surrogacy is illegal in Thailand. Commissioning parents who have taken up surrogacy arrangements are required to get a court order before they get to move out of Thailand.

Baby Gammy is left behind in Thailand by her parents

First, the issue started with a surrogate mother in Thailand claiming that an Australian Couple decided not to take one child of twins borns to her through surrogacy to Australia. Reportedly the reason provided by the surrogate was that the child was affected by down-syndrome and the commissioning couple were not interested in taking care of such a child. All defence for the couple stating that the child did not have down-syndrome turned out to be false. This started the uproar on social media as well as on main stream media. The Australian Authorities started to probe the issue.

Authorities in Thailand started probing the role of the surrogate mother. Though widely rampant and openly advetised and available, Commercial surrogacy arrangements were not recognized in Thailand. The surrogate mother was questioned by the police these circumstances.

Even worse, the Australian Father who had the children through surrogacy in Thailand had criminal records of child sex abuse. This update shook the world. A wonderful boon of surrogacy was in the hands of a man with history of being a child predator.

But thats not all. Investigation in Thailand revealed more.

Thirteen Babies through Surrogacy for One Father

After the crackdown of the Australian surrogacy case, the authorities started inspecting all surrogate homes, where the surrogate mothers were accomodated during the surrogacy arrangement during the period of gestation. Since commercial surrogacy was illegal in Thailand, a lot of such surrogate homes were raided. One such raid revealed a shocking fact. A single Japanese man had fathered 13 children through surrogacy. He was genetically related to each of them. At the raid, it is reported that few surrogate mothers were still pregnant with his children. The Japanese man, Mitsoetoke Sekata wanted to have more than 100 children throguh surrogacy reports Japanese Media. He had somehow come to the conclusion that the best he could contribute to the world is by having more children. The Japanese man is also under investigation. Meanwhile, the doctor, Pisit Tantiwattanakul, who had assisted the japanese man is also under scanner and has been arrested by the Military Police in Thailand.

I am to comment on these on my next post. I would like to quote infamous US surrogacy attorney Theresa Erickson at the time of being arrested: “I am tip of the ice-berg.” I am not sure what rude shocks lies for the future.


There seems to be an update with regard in the Union of India vs. Jan Balaz Case, more known as the German Surrogacy Case. This is the case where child was born through a surrogacy agreement in Anand, Gujarat with an Indian Surrogate Mother. The child could not obtain German Citizenship as surrogacy agreement is considered illegal in Germany. The German Couple applied for an Indian Passport for the child, quoting the indian surrogate mother as the legal mother of the child. The Passport Authorities issued the passport to the child, but later cancelled the same as the surrogate mother cannot be considered to be the legal mother of the child. The German Couple went against the cancellation to the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court provided relief to the German Couple ruling that the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child.

The Union of India went on appeal praying that the surrogate mother cannot be considered to be the legal mother of the child and that the issuance of the Indian Passport to the child is not in accordance with law.

The Couple had legal proceedings pending in India as well as Germany. After a series of diplomatic conversation, the German Government had allowed the children to return to Germany. The Couple left for Germany during the pendency of the litigation in India and Germany as a temporary measure. Even at the time of leaving the county, the children did not have German Citizenship.

The case seemed to come up for hearing on 4th September 2014. The Bench consisting of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL have discussed the legal implications of international surrogacy arrangements and the possibility of the child being a citizen of no Nation. The case comes up for hearing next after 6 weeks.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the Writ Application filed by a Sudanese National praying to allow surrogacy in India for single parents. The basis of the Writ was that Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a notification issued a notification addressing to the Ministry of External Affairs stating that foreigner wishing to take up surrogacy in India must be a couple married for atleast a period of two years. The petitioner herein Shihabeldin had prayed that surrogacy must be allowed for single parents as well. The Bench constituing HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI dismissed the plea preliminarily stating that the ART Bill is pending and the Court cannot void the vacuum in the absence of law.

We are, thus, confronted with a situation where undoubtedly there is a complex issue at hand of surrogacy qua single parents who are foreign citizens. It cannot be lost site of that there would have to be checks and balances in such a situation. As to what would be the final version of the Act and what are the checks and balances would in turn depend on the final proposal of the Cabinet which would in turn have to be placed before the House and only thereafter would it be known. What had persuaded us to intervene in this matter was the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier the National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India (Annexure P-4) were in force. There appeared to be some conflict between the guidelines issued under the Foreigners Act by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Annexure P-2) and the guidelines of the ICMR. However, the conflict for the interim period is resolved by all the respondents being in unison that in the interregnum period the arrangement which would prevail would not permit the single parent foreign citizen surrogacy. The final version would only emerge as stated aforesaid after the Parliament debates on the law. In view of the aforesaid position, we are not inclined to issue a writ in favour of the petitioner, a foreign citizen, who seeks single parent surrogacy as the law in this behalf itself is sought to be enacted and it is at a final stage. This is not a matter where the stated vacuum can be filled in by the Court in the interregnum period, moreso when there is now a unanimous view of the different Ministries of the Government of India as to what should prevail as an interim arrangement. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a hope that the final view would be available with the constitution of the new House which would have the benefit of debating the matters pertaining to the law post the Cabinet having scrutinized the same

In my personal opinion, pending of the ART BIll before the Parliament certainly is not a ground for the dismissal of a Writ. The Court should have appreciated the situation as it is existing today instead of merely waiting for the law to come into force. The Court should have gone into the merits of the case before dismissing the same. The ART Bill has been pending to be passed for a very long time.

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court make surrogacy in India still inaccessible for single man or woman and gay parents to take up surrogacy in India.