Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
008 INSC 1102
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • (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;
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
  • The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
  • Section 13, Chapter III of the Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Neutral Citations
008 INSC 1102
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • (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;
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
  • The Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005
  • Section 13, Chapter III of the Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Emiko Yamada—the grandmother of Baby Manji Yamada—invoked Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge directions issued by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court concerning the production and custody of the child. The High Court proceedings had originated from a habeas corpus writ petition (No. 7829 of 2008) filed by an NGO, “M/s Satya,” against various governmental authorities.

Undisputed facts include: Baby Manji was born on 25-7-2008 in Anand, Gujarat through a surrogacy arrangement entered into by her biological parents, Dr. Yuki Yamada and Dr. Ikufumi Yamada. Following a law-and-order situation in Gujarat, the child was moved to Arya Hospital, Jaipur, where she received neonatal care, including breastfeeding assistance. The genetic father returned to Japan upon expiry of his visa, and the Anand municipality issued a birth certificate naming him as the father.

The Supreme Court entertained additional grievances regarding (i) the child’s passport and travel permission, and (ii) extension of the grandmother’s visa.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Rajasthan High Court’s directions regarding the production and custody of Baby Manji were sustainable.
  2. Which statutory body is competent to address grievances concerning the child’s welfare and alleged irregularities in surrogacy arrangements.
  3. Whether the Central Government must expeditiously decide applications relating to the child’s passport/travel documents and the grandmother’s visa.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (Emiko Yamada)

  • Questioned the locus standi of the NGO “M/s Satya” in filing the habeas corpus petition, noting absence of clarity about any illegal custody of the child.
  • Asserted that the High Court petition lacked elements of public interest, despite being labelled as PIL.
  • Complained about administrative delay in issuing the child’s passport and extending the grandmother’s visa.

Respondent 3: NGO “M/s Satya”

  • Contended that India has no governing law on surrogacy and that “a lot of irregularities” and a “money-making racket” operate under its guise.
  • Urged the Union of India to enact and enforce stringent laws regulating surrogacy.

Union of India (through the Solicitor General)

  • Objected to statements made by the NGO, asserting that the High Court petition was not filed in good faith or truly in public interest.
  • Informed the Court that, upon receipt of a comprehensive application, the Central Government would dispose of requests for the child’s passport and the grandmother’s visa within four weeks.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court declined to enter into questions of the NGO’s locus standi or bona fides. Instead, it identified a specific statutory mechanism: the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. Section 13 of that Act empowers the National and State Commissions to:

  • Examine safeguards for child rights,
  • Inquire into violations or deprivation of such rights, and
  • Take suo motu action or act on complaints concerning children in distress.

Given these broad statutory powers, the Court held that any grievance about Baby Manji’s custody, welfare, or surrounding surrogacy issues must be routed to the appropriate Commission. It noted that no complaint had yet been filed with the Commission and emphasized that body’s competence to consider all relevant factors.

Regarding travel documents, the Court recorded the Solicitor General’s statement that a duly-filed “comprehensive application” would be decided within four weeks, providing the petitioner an avenue for further legal remedy if dissatisfied.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF

The writ petition was dismissed without costs, with liberty for any aggrieved person to approach the National or State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. All pending High Court proceedings on the same subject stand terminated by virtue of this order. The decision sets no new precedent but channels future disputes to the statutory Commission and obliges the Central Government to process travel-related applications within a specified timeframe.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Baby Manji Yamada v. Union Of India And Another

    Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India (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 the 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 NGO, Opposite Party No. 3 in this petition.

    3. The DB Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2008 was filed by M/s Satya wherein the Union of India through the 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.

    4. There is no dispute about Baby Manji Yamada having been given birth to 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 25-7-2008. On 3-8-2008 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. Ikufumi 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.

    5. Stand of Respondent 3 was that there is no law governing surrogation in India and in the name of surrogation a 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 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.

    6. The learned counsel for Respondent 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.

    7. We need not go into the locus standi of Respondent 3 and/or whether bona fides 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 the 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, marginalised 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.”

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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 or frozen sperm or impregnated via IUI (intrauterine insemination), or ICI (intracervical insemination) which is performed at a fertility clinic.

    11. In gestational surrogacy (also known 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.

    12. 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).

    13. 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”.

    14. 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 health 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.

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

    16. 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.

    17. 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 with 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 the appropriate authorities.

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

    19. 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.

    20. The 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.

    21. 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.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Baby Manji Yamada v. Union Of India And Another
    (Sep 29, 2008)