- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Asok Kumar Chatterjee v. Union Of India And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, father of a deceased son who suffered from thalassaemia, sought release of sperm that the deceased had stored at St. Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. The son died while married to respondent no. 4. The hospital's communication dated 19 January 2019 stated that further use of the sperm (for providing pregnancy to the donor's wife, donation to someone else, or discarding) could be decided only after permission of the patient's wife (marriage proof required). The petitioner requested respondent no. 4 to issue a no-objection to permit the petitioner to collect the sperm. The petitioner alleges respondent no. 4 did not reply and refused to acknowledge receipt. The petitioner challenged these circumstances by filing W.P.A. No. 4553 of 2020, which the court disposed of by dismissing the petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner, by virtue of his father-son relationship, has a legal or fundamental right to obtain the deceased son's preserved sperm.
- Whether the writ court can direct respondent no. 4 (a private individual) to give a no-objection or to respond to the petitioner's request, including whether such relief is maintainable under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner claimed a right to collect the deceased son's stored sperm based on his parental (father-son) relationship.
- In the alternative, the petitioner sought a direction requiring respondent no. 4 to issue a no-objection or, at minimum, to respond to his request.
Hospital's Position
- By communication dated 19 January 2019, the hospital stated that further use of the preserved sperm (including for the donor's wife, donation to others, or discarding) could be decided only after permission of the patient's wife and on production of marriage proof.
Respondent no. 4's Position
- The opinion records that respondent no. 4 did not reply to the petitioner's communication and is alleged to have refused to acknowledge receipt; no substantive legal justification from respondent no. 4 is set out in the opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court rejected the petitioner's claim that his father-son relationship conferred any fundamental or legal right to the deceased's preserved sperm. The court reasoned that the sperm belonged to the deceased and, because the deceased was married to respondent no. 4 at the time of his death, the only other person with any right in respect of the preserved sperm is the wife. The court held that the petitioner's asserted right to the progeny of his son is illusory and nonexistent. As to the alternate prayer seeking a direction to respondent no. 4 to respond or to issue a no-objection, the court found such relief beyond the scope of the writ jurisdiction because the matter did not involve violation of any fundamental or statutory right and respondent no. 4 is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. For these reasons the writ petition was held not maintainable.
Holding and Implications
Petition dismissed.
Direct consequences: W.P.A. No. 4553 of 2020 is dismissed; the petitioner was denied relief to obtain the deceased son's stored sperm and the court declined to direct respondent no. 4 to respond or give a no-objection. The opinion does not state any broader precedent beyond its application to the parties; no new legal principle was established in the text of the opinion.
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:— The petitioner contends that the petitioner's son was a patient of Thalassaemia. While in matrimony with the respondent no. 4, the said son died. During his lifetime, the petitioner's son had had his sperm stored with the St. Stephen Hospital, Tis Hazari, New Delhi. After the demise of the son, the petitioner approached the said hospital for releasing such sperm in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the father of the deceased donor.
2. The Hospital, in its communication dated January 19, 2019 (Annexure P-7 at page 26 of the writ petition), disclosed, among other things, that the further usage of sperm, that is, for providing pregnancy to the donor’ wife, donation to someone else or discarding, can be decided only after permission of the patient's wife (marriage proof required).
3. Upon such intimation, the petitioner urged the respondent no. 4, being the wife of the deceased son, to issue a ‘no-objection’ to the petitioner for collecting the aforesaid sperm.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 4 did not give any reply to the said communication; rather, it is alleged that, the respondent no. 4 refused to acknowledge the receipt of the said communication.
5. Learned counsel relies on the parental relationship of the petitioner and the deceased to assert the petitioner's right to collect such sperm, irrespective of the permission of the wife of the deceased. In the alternative, counsel submits, the respondent no. 4 ought to be directed to give her ‘no-objection’ or, at least, to respond to the request of the petitioner.
6. However, the petitioner's prayers have to be refused on both counts.
7. As far as the alleged right of the petitioner to collect such preserved sperm of his son, contrary to the arguments advanced by counsel, the petitioner does not have any ‘fundamental right’ to such permission, merely by dint of his father-son relationship with the deceased. The sperm preserved at the St. Stephen Hospital belonged to the deceased and, since the deceased was in matrimonial relationship with the respondent no. 4 at the juncture of his demise, the only other person, apart from the deceased, having any right to it is his wife, that is, the respondent no. 4. The father-son relationship of the petitioner and the deceased does not entail any such right of the petitioner to the progeny of his son. As such, the right espoused by the petitioner for himself is illusory and nonexistent.
8. As far as the prayer for a direction upon the respondent no. 4 to respond to the petitioner's communication is concerned, the same is beyond the scope of the writ court, since the matter does not involve any violation of fundamental or statutory right, nor does the respondent no. 4 come within the definition of ‘State’ as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
9. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable on such score either.
10. Accordingly, W.P.A. No. 4553 of 2020 is dismissed.
11. There will be no order as to costs.
12. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.
Alert