At the Delhi High Court on Monday, a quiet but significant moment unfolded. A Canada-based couple-struggling for years to start a family-finally received relief after months of frustrating back-and-forth with the District Medical Board. Justice Sachin Datta set aside the Board’s rejection order and held that insisting on physical presence, despite genuine overseas limitations, was unfair. The order came as a breather for many NRIs who face similar hurdles.
Background
The petitioners, a married couple living in Kamloops, British Columbia, have been working in Canada since 2022. They approached the District Medical Board in South Delhi in August 2024 seeking a Certificate of Medical Indication for Gestational Surrogacy, as required under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
But things got complicated when the Board insisted-repeatedly-that they must appear physically in Delhi, even though the couple explained that they couldn’t travel at short notice due to employment constraints and expensive international flights.
Read also: Supreme Court Begins Historic Hearing on Presidential Reference Questioning Governors’
Their authorised representative kept attending the meetings on their behalf, and the couple sent emails requesting virtual hearings. Still, the Board rejected their application in March 2025, citing they were “absent” during hearings. The rejection had no detailed reasoning, something the couple strongly challenged.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, Justice Datta appeared unconvinced by the Board’s rigid stance. The judge remarked that the District Medical Board’s role at this stage is largely to examine medical records, not conduct an elaborate personal enquiry.
“The bench observed, ‘There is no reason why the District Medical Board should not take a pragmatic view and allow virtual appearance, especially when other districts in Delhi already do so.’”
Read also: Kerala High Court Flags Rising Road Safety Violations, Questions Vlogger Videography and LED
The Court also noted that the surrogacy regulations cited by the Board-arguing that virtual hearings apply only to the State Board-did not justify forcing physical appearance at the District level. The judge added that any concerns about misuse or exploitation can be addressed during later stages when deeper examination is required.
Interestingly, the petitioners had placed examples from South-East and East Delhi Medical Boards where applicants were already being allowed virtual participation. This inconsistency in practice strengthened the Court’s criticism of the South District Board.
Read also: Karnataka High Court Quashes Police Refusal, Orders Arms Licence for Pilot After 54-Year Family
Decision
Justice Datta set aside the rejection order dated 07.03.2025 and directed the Board to conduct the proceedings virtually for the couple. Their authorised representative must attend physically with all medical records, but the couple can join from Canada.
The Court further instructed the Board to “revisit and re-examine” the application in the next available sitting and complete the process as quickly as possible.
Case Title: Apekshita Kala & Anr. vs. District Medical Board & Anr. APEKSHITA KALA & ANR
Court & Date: Delhi High Court, decision dated 10 November 2025.
Petitioners: A married couple living in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada.