The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has moved the Delhi High Court against a 2024 order that directed Sir Gangaram Hospital to hand over the frozen semen of an unmarried man who died after a terminal illness. The appeal raises sharp questions about consent, parentage, and whether preserved sperm can be treated like inheritable property.
Background of the Case
The man, aware of his condition, had earlier stored his semen in a cryopreserved state. After his death, his parents approached the court seeking its release so they could pursue surrogacy and continue their son’s lineage. In October 2024, a single judge allowed the request, observing that Indian law does not bar posthumous reproduction if the consent of the sperm or egg owner can be shown.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
The court noted that the case would have been simpler if the deceased had a spouse, but still directed the hospital to release the sample to the parents.
The hospital has not yet done so.
Court Observations During Appeal Hearing
A division bench led by Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia heard the Centre’s challenge. The bench told the government’s counsel, Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, that the court would first need an explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before deciding whether to hear it on merits.
The ministry argues that the earlier ruling “rewrites statutory definitions” and creates a new class of beneficiaries what it calls “intending grandparents.” It also questions whether gametes can be treated as property that passes to legal heirs without written consent.
Government’s Stand
In its plea, the Centre stressed that the deceased was unmarried and left no written, informed consent for the use of his preserved semen. It said the single judge relied on foreign cases where such consent existed,
“an element entirely absent in the present case.”
The ministry further submitted,
“A child conceived through posthumous reproduction at the instance of grandparents would have no legally recognised parentage under the Acts,” warning that this would undermine child welfare and certainty of parentage.
Pointing to the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act and the Surrogacy Regulation Act, the Centre said these laws form a complete code and limit eligibility to commissioning or intending couples or women within set age limits. Parents, it said, do not fit those definitions. The appeal asks the High Court to set aside the 2024 order, adding that the earlier decision
“improperly elevated emotional considerations into enforceable legal rights.”
Decision
The bench indicated it would first examine the delay in filing the appeal before deciding the next course.
Credit/Source:- The Times of India
