The German Couple who had a tiring journey through the Indian Judicial System in a bid to travel back to their homeland with the twin children finally have crossed the first step. The German Government had granted VISA for the children to be brought to Germany. The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) had earlier agreed that it would issue a No Objection Certificate for the adoption of the children. With what can be seen, the children have to be adopted (or something similar) by the German Couple in Germany. The Union of India had given the Exit Permit for the children to be taken to Germany.

The children remain stateless yet. The Union of India had only granted the Exit Permit to the children and not a citizenship. I do not see a change of scenario as far as nationality is concerned. However, the change in attitude of the German Government is seen by issuance of the VISA. The German Couple now have an opportunity to fight for their rights at judicial forums in Germany for the citizenship of the children. The German Government had always remained steadfast to its view that familial ties arising out of a surrogacy agreement cannot be valid in law. German Government was also very precautious that the Jan Balaz’s case should be a precedent for other Germans to take up surrogacy abroad.

The German Couple may be required to adopt the twin children in Germany. This would pave way for the twin children to obtain German Citizenship. However, the Balaz Family has percolated through the first step with the guidance and aid of the Supreme Court of India.

When the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of India, the court did not have much in its hands as the issue largely involved the policy of two states, Germany and India. Germany and India had conflicting policies with regard to surrogacy.

India was unable to grant citizenship to the twins born through surrogacy. The acquisition of citizenship by birth under the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 requires either one or both of the parents of the child to be Indian Citizens at the time of birth of the child. In the case on hand the children did not have an Indian National Parent. The contention of the German Couple was that the children born to an Indian surrogate mother using the gamete from an Indian anonymous egg donor is India; and that the surrogate mother was required to be regarded as the legal mother of the children. This contention had got the sympathetic eyes of the High Court of Gujarat, which agreed that the surrogate mother should be regarded as the legal mother of the child. The Gujarat High also directed the Union of India to grant citizenship and passport for the children enabling them to travel abroad.

The scenario took a complete change when the Union of India rushed to the Supreme Court of India challenging the verdict of the High Court of India. The Supreme Court of India seemed unmoved by the plea of the German Couple. The Solicitor General had time again stood stead fast to his argument that children born to a surrogate mother cannot be provided with Indian Citizenship.

I personally feel that the arguments which could have strengthened the stand of Union of India, but which was not presented is as follows:

(a) The Supreme Court of India in its earlier decision of Baby Manji (Japanese baby) held that the surrogacy agreement is valid in law.

(b) Any basic surrogacy agreement is required to contain the clause that the surrogate mother relinquishes her rights over the child, which is born to her.

(c)  The surrogacy agreement has to be enforced by a court of law. In the absence of any law to the contrary, the surrogacy agreement should control the conduct of the parties and a contrary view cannot be taken.

(d) Where the court takes an opinion, which is unfounded in law and in the surrogacy agreement, it would amount to legislating of a new principle.

(e) Concluding, in absence of law to the effect that the surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child, the court cannot bring out this new theory.

(f)  India does not have a legal mechanism whereby the parental rights of the surrogate mother would be transferred to the intended parent.

However, the above argument was not presented before the Supreme Court of India in support of the Union of India.

The Supreme Court of India successfully guided the German Couple through the legal maze. The Supreme Court of India had also recommended the emergent legislation of a law on surrogacy. The Bench headed by Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad said that no surrogate child should undergo the difficulties faced by Nicolas and Leonard.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

There is a quite a significant development in the Jan Balaz’s Case which is presently pending before the Supreme Court of India.

On the 3rd May 2010, the Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has reportedly represented before the Supreme Court of India its willingness to grant a No Objection Certificate to the German Couple, Jan Balaz and his wife to adopt their twin children born through surrogacy in India. This response form the Supreme Court of India would certainly prove to be beneficial to the couple who have been longing to take back their twin children back to their nation.

However, the much-awaited decision of the Apex Court would be answering many questions, and would be making way for many more new questions. This is the second decision from the Apex Court on Surrogacy, the first being that of Baby Manji. This decision of the Supreme Court of India is expected to answer the most important question of who is the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy.

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was earlier directed by the Supreme Court of India to consider the application for adoption made by the German Couple. The CARA had represented before the Supreme Court of India that children born through surrogacy is not within its scope of working, and that CARA can handle only cases of abandoned children. The Supreme Court of India had then directed CARA to reconsider its report and submit a fresh report.

This however does not turn out to be the final solution for the German Couple, as they are required to wait for the reply from the German government for the adoption plea.

I have been forced to ban myself off the blog for a few days due to a very hectic work schedule and too much travel. However, here I am back a wonderful news that’s going to bring a smile on anyone’s face who’s reading this.

The Law Commission of India has submitted the 228th Report on “NEED FOR LEGISLATION TO REGULATE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY CLINICS AS WELL AS RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES TO A SURROGACY .” The following observations had been made by the Law Commission:

[1] Surrogacy arrangement will continue to be governed by contract amongst parties, which will contain all the terms requiring consent of surrogate mother to bear child, agreement of her husband and other family members for the same, medical procedures of artificial insemination, reimbursement of all reasonable expenses for carrying child to full term, willingness to hand over the child born to the commissioning parent(s), etc. But such an arrangement should not be for commercial purposes.

[2] A surrogacy arrangement should provide for financial support for surrogate child in the event of death of the
commissioning couple or individual before delivery of the child, or divorce between the intended parents and subsequent willingness of none to take delivery of the child.

[3] A surrogacy contract should necessarily take care of life insurance cover for surrogate mother.

[4] One of the intended parents should be a donor as well, because the bond of love and affection with a child primarily emanates from biological relationship. Also, the chances of various kinds of child-abuse, which have been noticed in cases of adoptions, will be reduced. In case the intended parent is single, he or she should be a donor to be able to have a surrogate child. Otherwise, adoption is the way to have a child which is resorted to if biological (natural) parents and adoptive parents are different.

[5] Legislation itself should recognize a surrogate child to be the legitimate child of the commissioning parent(s) without there being any need for adoption or even declaration of guardian.

[6] The birth certificate of the surrogate child should contain the name(s) of the commissioning parent(s) only.

[7] Right to privacy of donor as well as surrogate mother should be protected.

[8] Sex-selective surrogacy should be prohibited.

[9] Cases of abortions should be governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 only.

The Report has come largely in support of the Surrogacy in India, highlighting a proper way of operating surrogacy in Indian conditions. Exploitation of the women through surrogacy is another worrying factor which the law has to address. Also, commercialization of surrogacy is something that has been issue in the mind of the Law Commission. However, this is a great step forward to the present situation. We can expect a legislation to come by early 2010.

This is one of the most frequent questions I answer during my meetings with the Intended Parents. Though the answer seems quite simple, the consequence of missing the right time to sign a surrogacy contract is quite a serious problem to the whole surrogacy program. Indian Surrogacy Law Centre recommends the right time to enter into a surrogacy contract with the surrogate is when the following four aspects have been finalized,

(a) the choice over the surrogate mother

(b) the choice over the Clinic

(c) the financial element, with regard to the compensation to the surrogate

(d) The dates for commencing the procedures at the hospital has been fixed.

Once all the above factors have been determined, it is the right time for entering into a surrogacy agreement. The surrogate should have a clear understanding of the agreement and there should be also some evidence for the same.

Importance of the time factor:

The date of signing of the surrogacy contract plays an important role is assessing the mind of the parties to the contract. It is important that the surrogate enters into the contract before the taking up of the medical procedures. The reason is that the medical procedures itself is a result of the contract entered between the parties, and this order of events cannot be rearranged. There have been cases where clinics do not stress on the need for signing of an appropriate agreement with the surrogate before carrying out the procedures. However, this practice does not serve any purpose.

More importantly, the effect of not signing of a surrogacy agreement at an appropriate time has an adverse inference over the agreement. In such cases, the obvious question the Court poses to a person who relies on the agreement is as to why the agreement was not entered with the surrogate before she had taken up the medical procedures.

Therefore it is important to have the surrogacy agreement entered by the parties before proceeding with the medical procedures.

The Decision of the First Case decided by the Supreme Court on Surrogacy has been extracted hereunder:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (C) No. 369 of 2008

Decided On: 29.09.2008

Appellants: Baby Manji Yamada
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Anr.

Hon’ble Judges:
Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter for short ‘the Constitution’) raises some important questions.

2. Essentially challenge is to certain directions given by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relating to production/custody of a child Manji Yamada. Emiko Yamada, claiming to be grandmother of the child, has filed this petition. The Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court was filed by M/s. SATYA, stated to be an NG0, the opposite party No. 3 in this petition. The D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2008 was filed by M/s. SATYA wherein the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, The Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan and the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City (East), Jaipur were made the parties. There is no dispute about Baby Manji Yamada having been given birth by a surrogate mother. It is stated that the biological parents Dr. Yuki Yamada and Dr. Ikufumi Yamada came to India in 2007 and had chosen a surrogate mother in Anand, Gujarat and a surrogacy agreement was entered into between the biological father and biological mother on one side and the surrogate mother on the other side. It appears from some of the statements made that there were matrimonial discords between the biological parents. The child was born on 25th July, 2008. On 3rd August, 2008 the child was moved to Arya Hospital in Jaipur following a law and order situation in Gujarat and she was being provided with much needed care including being breastfed by a woman. It is stated by the petitioner that the genetic father Dr. Ifukumi Yamada had to return to Japan due to expiration of his visa. It is also stated that the Municipality at Anand has issued a Birth Certificate indicating the name of the genetic father.

3. Stand of respondent No. 3 was that there is no law governing surrogation in India and in the name of surrogation lot of irregularities are being committed. According to it, in the name of surrogacy a money making racket is being perpetuated. It is also the stand of the said respondent that the Union of India should enforce stringent laws relating to surrogacy. The present petitioner has questioned the locus standi of respondent No. 3 to file a habeas corpus petition. It is pointed out that though custody of the child was being asked for but there was not even an indication as to in whose alleged illegal custody the child was. It is stated that though the petition before the High Court was styled as a “Public Interest Litigation” there was no element of public interest involved. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 with reference to the counter- affidavit filed in this Court had highlighted certain aspects relating to surrogacy. The learned Solicitor General has taken exception to certain statements made in the said counter affidavit and has submitted that the petition before the High Court was not in good faith and was certainly not in public interest.

4. We need not go into the locus standi of respondent No. 3 and/or whether bonafides are involved or not. It is to be noted that the Commissions For Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (hereinafter for short ‘the Act’) has been enacted for the constitution of a National Commission and State Commissions for protection of child rights and children’s courts for providing speedy trial of offences against children or of violation of child rights and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 13 which appears in Chapter III of the Act is of considerable importance. The same reads as follows:

13. Functions of Commission.

(1) The Commission shall perform all or any of the following functions, namely:

(a) examine and review the safeguards provided by or under any law for the time being in force for the protection of child rights and recommend measures for their effective implementation;

(b) present to the Central Government, annually and at such other intervals, as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;

(c) inquire into violation of child rights and recommend initiation of proceedings in such cases;

(d) examine all factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights of children affected by terrorism, communal violence, riots, natural disaster, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, trafficking, maltreatment, torture and exploitation, pornography and prostitution and recommend appropriate remedial measures.

(e) look into the matters relating to children in need of special care and protection including children in distress, marginalized and disadvantaged children, children in conflict with law, juveniles, children without family and children of prisoners and recommend appropriate remedial measures;

(f) study treaties and other international instruments and undertake periodical review of existing policies, programmes and other activities on child rights and make recommendations for their effective implementation in the best interest of children;

(g) Undertake and promote research in the field of child rights;

(h) spread child rights literacy among various sections of the society and promote awareness of the safeguards available for protection of these rights through publications, the media, seminars and other available means;

(i) inspect or cause to be inspected any juvenile custodial home, or any other place of residence or institution meant for children, under the control of the Central Government or any State Government or any other authority, including any institution run by a social organisation; where children are detained or lodged for the purpose of treatment, reformation or protection and take up with these authorities for remedial action, if found necessary;

(j) inquire into complaints and take suo motu notice of matters relating to, –

(i) deprivation and violation of child rights;

(ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children;

(iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities; and

(k) such other functions as it may consider necessary for the promotion of child rights and any other matter incidental to the above functions

2) The Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is pending before a State Commission or any other Commission duly constituted under any law for the time being in force.

5. Surrogacy is a well known method of reproduction whereby a woman agrees to become pregnant for the purpose of gestating and giving birth to a child she will not raise but hand over to a contracted party. She may be the child’s genetic mother (the more traditional form for surrogacy) or she may be, as a gestational carrier, carry the pregnancy to delivery after having been implanted with an embryo. In some cases surrogacy is the only available option for parents who wish to have a child that is biologically related to them.

The word “surrogate”, from Latin “subrogare”, means “appointed to act in the place of”. The intended parent(s) is the individual or couple who intends to rear the child after its birth.

6. In “traditional surrogacy” (also known as the Straight method) the surrogate is pregnant with her own biological child, but this child was conceived with the intention of relinquishing the child to be raised by others; by the biological father and possibly his spouse or partner, either male or female. The child may be conceived via home artificial insemination using fresh of frozen sperm or impregnated via IUI (intrauterine insemination), or ICI (intra cervical insemination) which is performed at a fertility clinic. ‘

7. In “gestational surrogacy” (also know as the Host method) the surrogate becomes pregnant via embryo transfer with a child of which she is not the biological mother. She may have made an arrangement to relinquish it to the biological mother or father to raise, or to a parent who is themselves unrelated to the child (e. g. because the child was conceived using egg donation, germ donation or is the result of a donated embryo). The surrogate mother may be called the gestational carrier.

8. “Altruistic surrogacy” is a situation where the surrogate receives no financial reward for her pregnancy or the relinquishment of the child (although usually all expenses related to the pregnancy and birth are paid by the intended parents such as medical expenses, maternity clothing, and other related expenses).

9. “Commercial surrogacy” is a form of surrogacy in which a gestational carrier is paid to carry a child to maturity in her womb and is usually resorted to by well off infertile couples who can afford the cost involved or people who save and borrow in order to complete their dream of being parents. This medical procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to excellent medical infrastructure, high international demand and ready availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes referred to by the emotionally charged and potentially offensive terms “wombs for rent”, “outsourced pregnancies” or “baby farms”.

10. Intended parents may arrange a surrogate pregnancy because a woman who intends to parent is infertile in such a way that she cannot carry a pregnancy to term. Examples include a woman who has had a hysterectomy, has a uterine malformation, has had recurrent pregnancy loss or has a healthy condition that makes it dangerous for her to be pregnant. A female intending parent may also be fertile and healthy, but unwilling to undergo pregnancy.

11. Alternatively, the intended parent may be a single male or a male homosexual couple.

12. Surrogates may be relatives, friends, or previous strangers. Many surrogate arrangements are made through agencies that help match up intended parents with women who want to be surrogates for a fee. The agencies often help manage the complex medical and legal aspects involved. Surrogacy arrangements can also be made independently. In compensated surrogacies the amount a surrogate receives varies widely from almost nothing above expenses to over $ 30,000. Careful screening is needed to assure their health as the gestational carrier incurs potential obstetrical risks.

13. In the present case, if any action is to be taken that has to be taken by the Commission. It has a right to inquire into complaints and even to take suo motu notice of matters relating to, (i) deprivation and violation of child rights (ii) non-implementation of laws providing for protection and development of children and (iii) non-compliance of policy decisions, guidelines or instructions aimed at mitigating hardships to and ensuring welfare of the children and to provide relief to such children, or take up the issues arising out of such matters with appropriate authorities.

14. It appears that till now no complaint has been made by anybody relating to the child, the petitioner in this Court.

15. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with a direction that if any person has any grievance, the same can be ventilated before the Commission constituted under the Act. It needs no emphasis that the Commission has to take into account various aspects necessary to be taken note of.

16. Another grievance of the petitioner is that the permission to travel so far as the child is concerned including issuance of a Passport is under consideration of the Central Government; but no orders have been passed in that regard. The other prayer in the petition is with regard to an extension of the visa of the grandmother of the child requesting for such an order.

17. Learned Solicitor General, on instructions, stated that if a comprehensive application, as required under law, is filed within a week, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously and not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of such application. If the petitioner has any grievance in relation to the order to be passed by the Central Government, such remedy, as is available in law may be availed.

18. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs. All proceedings pending in any High Court relating to the matter which we have dealt with in this petition shall stand disposed of because of this order.