The Ministry of Home Affairs by its communication dated 23rd July 2012 transfers the application partly to the Ministry of External Affairs. It could be noted here that the Ministry of External Affairs had brushed aside the RTI Application earlier made to them pertaining to the publication of surrogacy notification in the websites of the Embassies and failed to provide any information pertaining to the same. The post pertaining to failure to disclose information is here. It would be interesting to witness if the Ministry of External Affairs discloses information pertaining to the publication of the Surrogacy Notification in the websites of the Indian Embassies and Consulates.

 

Question 21 of the RTI Application related to the number of Exit VISA stamping done for cases of surrogacy. The Ministry of Home Affairs had transferred the particular question to the all the State Governments, Union Territories and the Foreigners Regional Registration Officers (FRROs).

 

 

Few of my colleagues at the American Bar Association had expressed concern over the changing circumstances for surrogacy in India. The Indian Embassies in various countries have published the following notification stating that there is a special category of visa called the “Surrogacy VISA.” However, there is no clarity from the embassy as to what are the requirements for obtaining the new VISA. The basis on which the new VISA category has come into force is a matter of question as there is no special legislation on surrogacy in India.

 

SURROGACY

Any person seeking a visa to India for purpose of entering into a surrogacy arrangement must ascertain beforehand whether the law of that country permits surrogacy and will provide appropriate travel documents to the child for accompanying the surrogate parents. Entering into surrogacy arrangement under any other visa not sought for surrogacy is punishable under the Indian law.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR VISA FOR SURROGACY ARRANGMENTS

This is to bring to notice that any person seeking a visa to India for the purpose of entering into a surrogacy arrangement must ascertain beforehand whether the law of his/her country permits surrogacy and will provide appropriate travel documents to the child for accompanying the surrogate parents. Entering into surrogacy arrangement under any other visa not sought for surrogacy is punishable under the Indian law.

Further, this notification left commissioning couple perplexed as to what are the requirements to be fulfilled to take up surrogacy in India. Without proper information from the Indian Embassies, several intended parents have been unable to satisfy the authorities on the documentation for obtaining the new surrogacy VISA. Many Indian Embassies also required specific letter from the Government which states that surrogacy is recognised in their country and that the country would allow the child born through surrogacy back into their nation. This proves challenging as no Government would provide such a letter at a preliminary stage and grant of citizenship for children born abroad allows depends on the circumstance surrounding the birth.

I had taken the initiative to investigate over this matter and sought clarity over the regulations based on which such notifications have been issued. As part of the initiative, I wrote to  Ministry of External Affairs and various embassies that have published such Notification as the above.

 

The questions posed to the Ministry of External Affairs are as follows:

  1. What are the legal circumstances on which the said notice has been published in the Embassy Website?
  2. Please provide copies of rules/regulation/Gazette notification/legislation by which the above-mentioned notice has been published in the website of the Embassies/High Commission of India.
  3. Under which rule/regulation/Act the said notice was published in the website of the Embassy?
  4. Who is the authority who recommended/caused the publication of the said notice?
  5. Please provide the certified copy of the official communication from the Authority recommending/causing the publication of the said notice in the website of the Embassy and/or Official Gazette.
  6. Which Authority approved the publication of the said notice? Please provide certified copies relating to the Approval, if any.
  7. Which authority approved the publication of the said notices in the websites of the embassies? Please furnish certified copies of the rules/regulations/legislations/notification pertaining to the approval of the same.
  8. What is the general procedure to be adopted for approving and publishing a similar notice/advisory in the website of the Embassies/High Commission of India? Please furnish certified copies of the rules/regulations/legislations/notification pertaining to the approval of the same.
  9. Has the procedure specified in Question 8 been followed for the publication of the notice?
  10. Which Act /Rule/ Regulation governs the approval and publication of any notice /website in the Embassies of India located abroad.
  11. Which Department in M.E.A. is in-charge and responsible for the drafting of the contents in the website of the Embassy?
  12. Whether there is any Rule/ Regulation/Legislation/Regulation allowing or prohibiting surrogacy in India for foreign nationals?
  13. Which category of VISA is required to be applied for taking up surrogacy in India by foreign nationals?
  14. What is the procedure for obtaining the VISA for taking up surrogacy arrangement in India? Please furnish copies of the related Rule/ Regulation/Legislation/Notification pertaining specifically for VISA for surrogacy procedure in India.
  15. What are the supporting documents/certifications required to apply for the VISA for surrogacy procedure in India?
  16. If any letter is required from any Government/autonomous agency of the country of the Foreign National, what should such letter/Certification contain for the satisfaction of the Indian authorities when applying for VISA for surrogacy procedure in India?
  17. If any letter/certificate is required from any Government agency/authority for obtaining VISA for surrogacy procedure in India, and if the Government Agency/Authority is failing to provide such documentation/certification, what other documentation would be required to be submitted?
  18. If any documentation is required, which Rule/Regulation/Legislation/Gazette Notification etc stipulates that foreign intended parents seeking surrogacy in India have to provide such documentation as stipulated in Question 17 above.
  19. How many VISA applications have been received till date where the applicants have stated “surrogacy” as their purpose of visit? Please specify the origin country, category of the VISA applied for, Year wise Split-up and the result of such applications.
  20. Till date, how many “EXIT VISA stamping” have been done for children born through surrogacy in India? Please provide year-wise split-up along with the records on the citizenship of the child/applying parents wherein application for EXIT VISA stamping has been received.
I await to hear from the Ministry of External Affairs and the Embassies on this drive to obtain information on international commercial surrogacy in India.

 

Last week we had an interesting development at the United Kingdom relating to commercial surrogacy. Mr. Justice Headley had pronounced another landmark decision pertaining to surrogacy. Mr. Justice Headley had earlier decided the case of Re: X & Y and also Re: K (Minors) both of which are pertaining to international commercial surrogacy.

The matter relates to a commercial surrogacy arrangement made in Illinois wherein agreements for commercial surrogacy are legal. The agreement is no doubt illegal as per the 2008 legislation in the United Kingdom. Mr. Justice Headley opined that he remains satisfied that “the payment in excess of the reasonable expenses were made in this particular case to the surrogate mother.”

He also opined: “I observe only that ‘reasonable expenses’ remains a somewhat opaque concept. The approach that I have adopted is to treat any payment described as ‘compensation’ (or some similar word) as prima facie being a payment that goes beyond reasonable expenses. It is necessary to emphasize (as comparisons between the USA and Western India graphically illustrate) that no guidance can be gained from ‘conventional’ capital sums or conventional quantum of expenses. Each case must be scrutinized on its own facts.” Mr. Justice Headley stated that it is important every intended parent duly acquaints themselves about the international surrogacy arrangements prior to entering to the same.

With the introduction of the 2008 legislation, the court stated that the welfare of the child is not only the court’s first consideration, but also the paramount consideration. The court weighed and balanced between the public policy considerations and welfare of the child to decide in favour of the welfare of the child. It was stated that the court would be able to withhold an order if otherwise welfare considerations supports its making. “It underlines the court’s earlier observation that if it is desired to control commercial surrogacy arrangements, those controls need to operate before the court process is initiated i.e. at the borders or even before.”

This decision gains importance in view of the growing number of intended parent flying to India for commercial surrogacy. As stated in the decision, it is important the intended parents are well informed about the legal position in India and in UK prior to entering into commercial surrogacy arrangements. It has to be seen on a case by case basis and never there is a general rule.

The official copy of the full text decision is available here.

New York does not allow commercial surrogacy and New Yorkers opt to go for some other place where surrogacy is legal to have children from there. A male gay couple from New York had taken up surrogacy in California. The embryo was created out of the egg from an egg donor and sperm from one of the gay couple. On birth of the child, pursuant to the standard California practice, they approached a court there, along with the surrogate mother and her husband and obtained a pre-birth order naming the gay couple as the parents of the twin to be born. The twins were born in the year 2001 and the names of the gay parents appeared on the birth certificate.

Later, the gay couple broke up. The parent, who is genetically related to the child filed for child support in the New York Family court.  It was argued by the defendant, who was genetically unrelated to the child, that parentage deriving from surrogacy was not recognized in the New York and hence he was not liable to pay the child support. On October 4 2010, Magistrate Rachel Parisi rejected that argument. It was noted by her that there is no public policy exception to the enforcement of judgments from courts in other states. The parentage decision was entitled to recognition in the New York. She also relied on a 2005 ruling that New York statutes contemplate that a court will determine parental rights and responsibilities even when a child has been born from a surrogacy arrangement.

This decision is significant for number of New Yorkers who take up international surrogacy. This decision also highlights the importance of having a parental order on birth of the child.

An unnamed Canadian couple who had taken up surrogacy created a new row of ethical  moral debates over their surrogacy arrangement. The surrogate mother was pregnant with their child using embryos created out of their own gametes. When in the womb of the surrogate mother, the child was found to have medical risks to be born with Down’s Syndrome. The Intended Parents who had come to know of this wanted the surrogate mother to abort the child. The surrogate mother refused for the same. However, when the intended parents threatened to withdraw their support for the surrogacy arrangement, the surrogate mother decided to abort as she had two kids of her own. Neither the intended parents nor the surrogate mother approached the court of law. The above case was reportedly enumerated by Dr. Seethram at the Canadian Society of Fertility and Andrology conference during his presentation. These facts had brought to the world a new set of issues where the surrogate mother would be required to decide freely without any coercive environment. The intervention of governmental agencies occupied a prominent scope in the debates.

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.