Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 2(f),
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
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 2(f),
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners, married since 2007, were unable to conceive and underwent infertility treatment at the 7th respondent hospital. Following an oocyte retrieval in 2014, four embryos were fertilized and preserved at the same hospital. Treatment ceased in 2016 due to medical reasons. Encouraged by a relative's successful conception through similar treatment, the petitioners sought to resume treatment at the 8th respondent hospital. They requested the 7th respondent to transfer their frozen embryos to the 8th respondent hospital. However, after the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 came into force on 20.01.2022, the 7th respondent refused the transfer citing restrictions under the new Act. Consequently, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions for transfer of their embryos and constitution of the National Board envisaged under the Act to grant such permission.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to transfer their frozen embryos from the 7th respondent hospital to the 8th respondent hospital despite the restrictions imposed by the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
  2. Whether the refusal by the 7th respondent to transfer the embryos is lawful under Section 29 of the Act.
  3. Whether the National Board under the Act has been constituted and if it can grant permission for such transfer.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The refusal by the 7th respondent to transfer the embryos obstructs the petitioners' hope of having a child.
  • Since the National and State Boards envisaged under the Act are not yet constituted, the petitioners or the 8th respondent cannot seek permission from such Boards.
  • The embryos have been preserved for nearly eight years, approaching the maximum permissible preservation period of ten years, and non-transfer would cause undue prejudice to the petitioners.

8th Respondent's Arguments

  • The 8th respondent hospital possesses all necessary technological facilities and specialist doctors to continue the assisted reproductive process.
  • Documentary evidence (Ext.P6) confirms the 8th respondent’s capability to receive and process the embryos further.

7th Respondent's Position

  • The 7th respondent did not appear despite service of notice and thus did not present arguments.

Government Counsel's Submission

  • The National Board under the Act was constituted on 04.05.2022 and the related Rules were notified on 09.06.2022.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the provisions of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, particularly Section 29, which prohibits the sale, transfer, or use of gametes, zygotes, and embryos except for personal use with permission from the National Board. The Court found that the refusal by the 7th respondent to transfer the embryos was based on a misinterpretation of Section 29. Since the embryos belong to the petitioners themselves and no sale or third-party transfer is involved, the provision does not apply to bar the transfer. The Court emphasized the Act's primary objective of regulating and supervising clinics and banks to prevent misuse and ensure ethical practices, not to create obstacles for individuals seeking assisted reproductive procedures. Recognizing the embryos' right to develop and the petitioners' legitimate interest, the Court directed the transfer upon payment of due fees and compliance with procedural safeguards.

Holding and Implications

The Court ordered that upon payment of outstanding fees, the 7th respondent hospital must permit the transfer of the petitioners' frozen embryos to the 8th respondent hospital forthwith.

The 8th respondent was directed to receive, preserve, and care for the embryos and to file an affidavit within five days confirming it possesses the requisite facilities under the Act. This decision directly facilitates the petitioners' continued assisted reproductive treatment without setting a broader precedent beyond the facts of this case.

    Rakhi Bose And Another v. Union Of India, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Prime Minister's Office And Others

    V.G. Arun, J.:— Life inside a human embryo remains frozen, awaiting its opportunity to be born as a child to its parents; the petitioners. Meanwhile, the State brings out a well meaning legislation viz, the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (‘the Act’ for short). Will the new enactment have an impact on the Assisted Reproductive procedure, which the petitioners now want to continue, is the question. The essential facts are as under;

    2. The marriage of the petitioners was solemnized on 10.7.2007. Even after 15 years of marriage, the first petitioner was not able to conceive. Hence, the couple opted for infertility treatment at the 7 respondent hospital. As part of the procedure, the first petitioner underwent an Oocytes Retrieval procedure on 02.09.2014. Out of the six eggs injected after retrieval, four fertilised. The embryos were then preserved at the 7 respondent hospital. The petitioners continued treatment at the 7 respondent hospital and later, at the hospital's branch in Dubai, where they are employed. The treatment was stopped in 2016 on the advice of the Chief Consultant, since the required wall thickness of the uterus could not be obtained. Some time later, the first petitioner's sister, who had undergone the same process, conceived after ten years of marriage and gave birth to twins. This rekindled the petitioners' hope of having a child. The couple therefore re-commenced their treatment at the 8 respondent hospital. As advised by the Doctors at the 8 respondent, the petitioners requested for the 7 respondent's permission to transfer the frozen embryos to the 8 respondent. During the interregnum, the Act came into force on 20.01.2022, bringing in restrictions with respect to matters connected to the Assisted Reproductive Technology. The 7 respondent therefore sent a reply stating that, transfer of the embryos is not permissible after the introduction of the Act. The writ petition is hence filed seeking the following reliefs;

    “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to constitute National Board as contemplated in Sec. 29 of the ART Act, 2021 and Surrogacy Act, 2021 or adhoc National Board to enable it to grant permission for petitioners to transfer their own frozen embryo kept in R7 Hospital to R8 Hospital, for their own use and to grant urgently such permission as applied for;

    ii. If the statutory mechanism provided for such transfer under the Act is not in place even now, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct R7 to transfer the frozen embryo of petitioners kept in their hospital to R8 Hospital, where all facilities are provided for further processing of embryo, as is made clear in Exhibit P6 and as requested by Petitioners in Exhibit P 7 and P7 (a), forthwith;

    iii. To declare that the petitioners are entitled to get their frozen embryo, kept in R7 Hospital, transferred to R8 Hospital, forthwith, where all facilities for continued treatment are available, as the statutory mechanism under the Act to grant such permission, is not provided yet;

    iv. Direct R1 to R6 to grant permission to trans fer the frozen embryo of the Petitioners kept in 7th Respondent Hospital to 8th Respondent Hospital forthwith in the special circumstances, in this case;

    v. Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or direction quashing Ext.P8 decision of 7th respondent being arbitrary and illegal.”

    3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners' hope of having a child is trampled upon by the 7 respondent by its refusal to transfer the embryo to the 8 respondent hospital. It is submitted that, since the National and State Boards envisaged under the Act are not constituted, the petitioners or the 8 respondent cannot approach the Board seeking permission for effecting the transfer. The maximum period for which embryos can be preserved is ten years and eight years having elapsed already, the petitioners will be put to undue prejudice and misery if the transfer is not permitted.

    4. In spite of service of notice, the 7 respondent has not appeared.

    5. Adv. Sherin Varghese appearing for the 8 respondent submitted that the hospital has all necessary technological facilities for storing the embryos and the service of specialist Doctors for continuing the assisted reproductive process. Reference is made to Ext.P6, wherein, while addressing the Embryologist at the 7 respondent hospital, the Chief Embryologist of the 8 respondent has stated that the hospital has all the facilities to receive the embryos for further processing.

    6. Learned CGC submitted that the National Board under the Act was constituted on 04.05.2022 and the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022 notified on 09.06.2022.

    7. The preamble of the Act shows that the objective of the Act is the regulation and supervision of the assisted reproductive technology clinics and the assisted reproductive technology banks, prevention of misuse, safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services for addressing the issues of reproductive health where assisted reproductive technology is required for further use due to infertility, disease or social or medical concerns and for regulation and supervision of research and development and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. As per Section 2(a), Assisted Reproductive Technology means all technologies that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocytes outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman. The terms ‘Assisted Reproductive Technology Bank’ and ‘Assisted Technology Reproductive Clinic’ are defined under Section 2(1)(b) and (c). As per Section 2(f), an ‘embryo’ means a developing or developed organism after fertilization till the end of fifty-six days from the date of fertilization. An infertile married couple is termed as ‘commissioning couple’ under Section 2(1)(e) and ‘infertility’ is the inability to conceive after one year of unprotected coitus or other proven medical condition preventing a couple from conception [Section 2(1)(j)]. The Act provides for constitution of a National Board under Section 3 and a National Registry under Section 9. The procedure for registration of the assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks is provided under Sections 15 and 16. The duties of assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks are provided in Chapter IV (Sections 21 to 24). Under Section 29, there is prohibition against the sale, transfer or use of gametes, zygotes and embryos, or any part thereof or information related thereto, directly or indirectly to any party within or outside India, except in the case of transfer of own gametes and embryos for personal use with the permission of the National Board.

    8. Presumably, the 7 respondent has refused to transfer the embryos to the 8 respondent, relying on Section 29. In my considered opinion, Section 29 does not interdict such transfer. A close scrutiny of the provision shows that the intention is to prevent/restrict sale etc. of human gametes, zygotes and embryos. In the case at hand, there is no such transfer, since no donor or third party is involved and the embryos are that of the commissioning couple. Apart from the aspirations of the first petitioner to conceive and the second petitioner, to beget a child, the right of the life inside the embryo, which is kept frozen for the past 8 years, to develop into a fetus and be born, cannot be stultified by relying on a provision which has no application. The primary objective of the Act is the regulation and supervision of the assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks, by preventing misuse and ensuring safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services. The Act is not intended to create difficulties for persons opting assisted reproductive procedure.

    9. For the aforementioned reasons, I deem it appropriate to issue the following interim direction;

    (i) Petitioners shall pay the amounts due to the 7 respondent hospital for preserving the embryos from 02.09.2014 onwards.

    (ii) On such payment being effected and a copy of this order being produced, the 7 respondent shall forthwith permit transfer of the embryos to the 8 respondent hospital.

    (iii) The 8 respondent shall collect the embryos and transfer it to its Assisted Reproductive Technology Bank and preserve the embryos with due care and protection.

    (iv) The 8 respondent shall, within 5 days, file an affidavit before this Court affirming that it has all the requisite facilities envisaged under the Act.

    10. Post after a week.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Rakhi Bose And Another v. Union Of India, Repr...
    (Jun 21, 2022)