\ The court had earlier asked the respondents to spell out The court had earlier asked the respondents to spell out\the government\\’s policy on the issue.\ During the hearing of petition last month, the bench had\also asked the couple how they could file this petition\because the Constitution gave such right only to Indian\citizens.\ However, their lawyer argued that Article 21 gave such a\right to every person, even to a foreign national.\ \\"This is because right to life (under A 21) includes right\to have a baby and hence the couple has a right to file such\petition in the high court,\\" the lawyer had argued.\ The petition said the couple tried to have a baby for many\years but failed, and the doctors advised them surrogacy.\Accordingly, the American doctors, using the couple\\’s sperms\and eggs, created the embryos and advised them to get a\surrogate mother.\ The couple sent the frozen embryos to India by a special\courier. They obtained \\’surrogacy visa\\’ and came to India.\ In April 2015, the Indian Council for Medial Research had\given no objection certificate to the couple to import their\frozen embryos from the US.\ But in November 2015, the Centre announced a change in the\policy and banned surrogacy for foreign couples.\ The couple then asked the hospital to return the frozen\embryos, but the hospital refused, saying import and export of\embryos was now banned.\ The couple approached the Indian government, which also\refused to allow them take back the embryos citing the new\rules.\ The couple argued that taking back the embryos did not\amount to \\’exporting\\’ them out of India, because they were\seeking to restore them back to the place from where they had\originated. PTI SVS NM KRK\ZMN\


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here