- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
NANDINI K v. THE UNION OF INDIA
Factual and Procedural Background
The writ petitions are filed by multiple couples undergoing or intending to undergo assisted reproductive services, motivated by their desire to have children. The petitioners challenge the upper age limits prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (the "ART Act"), which prohibits the provision of ART services to women above 50 years and men above 55 years of age. Prior to the ART Act, there were no such upper age limits under the National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India (2005), and some petitioners were in the midst of their treatment when the ART Act came into force on 25.01.2022, causing an abrupt halt to their treatment. This led to emotional and psychological distress among the petitioners.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the upper age limits of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act are rational, non-arbitrary, and constitutionally valid.
- Whether the prescription of upper age limits violates the fundamental right to reproductive choice and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the absence of a transitional provision in the ART Act, which would allow continuation of ART treatments commenced before the Act's enforcement, is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
- Whether the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board should be directed to review and recommend changes regarding the upper age limits and transitional provisions under the ART Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The upper age limits of 50 for women and 55 for men are irrational, arbitrary, and unreasonable.
- Prior National Guidelines prescribed only minimum age limits, not upper age limits, and petitioners had commenced treatment under those guidelines without age restrictions.
- The ART Act's sudden enforcement without transitional provisions caused emotional and mental distress to petitioners undergoing treatment.
- Reproductive rights are fundamental rights under Article 21 and recognized internationally as human rights.
- There is no adequate legislative or expert discussion justifying the fixed upper age limits.
- The age restrictions unjustifiably discriminate against married women whose husbands have crossed the age limit but who themselves are below 50 years.
Amicus Curiae's Submission
- Presented a detailed report considering psychological, ethical, and social aspects of limiting access to ART.
- Psychologically, restrictions cause frustration and emotional harm to couples unable to reproduce naturally.
- Ethically, concerns arise about risks to maternal health at advanced age and care for the child.
- Socially, later parenthood is linked to more stable families and better socio-economic conditions, though concerns about parental capacity and social stigma exist.
- Suggested the National Board review the upper age limit and recommend changes to the Central Government.
Respondents' Arguments (Central Government)
- The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare considered all relevant aspects and recommended the age limits of 21 to 50 years for women and 21 to 55 years for men based on stakeholder inputs.
- The Parliament passed the ART Act after due discussion and debate, and the age limits are part of well-considered legislation.
- There is no irrationality or arbitrariness warranting judicial interference in the prescribed upper age limits.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Suchita Srivastava and Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration [(2009) 9 SCC 1] | Recognition of reproductive choice as a dimension of personal liberty under Article 21. | The Court cited this to affirm that reproductive rights include the right to procreate and carry pregnancy to term, subject to reasonable statutory restrictions. |
| K.S. Puttuswamy and another v. Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1] | Privacy, dignity, family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are integral to individual dignity and liberty under Article 21. | The Court relied on this to emphasize the constitutional protection of privacy and reproductive autonomy as fundamental rights. |
| Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1] | Doctrine of manifest arbitrariness in legislation and principle of presumption of constitutionality. | The Court applied this principle to balance the presumption of constitutionality with the need to prevent arbitrary and excessive legislative restrictions. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the fundamental right to reproductive choice as part of personal liberty under Article 21, drawing upon precedents such as Suchita Srivastava and K.S. Puttuswamy. It recognized that the ART Act's prescription of an upper age limit restricts this right. However, the Court also noted the principle of presumption of constitutionality and that absence of detailed legislative discussion or international consensus on age limits does not automatically render the provision unconstitutional.
The Court examined comparative international practices, noting varied approaches to age limits in different countries, and considered expert opinions indicating that paternal age may not significantly impact ART outcomes, particularly given the ART Act's mandate for pre-implantation genetic testing.
While the age limits themselves were not found to be manifestly arbitrary or excessive, the Court found the lack of a transitional provision—effectively preventing continuation of ART treatments commenced before the Act's enforcement—to be unreasonable and arbitrary. This absence unjustifiably restricts the reproductive liberty of couples already undergoing treatment.
The Court further highlighted the role of the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board, empowered under Section 5 of the ART Act to advise the Central Government on policy matters. It directed the National Board to bring to the Central Government's attention the impact of the upper age limits and the need for transitional provisions, thereby facilitating legislative reconsideration and amendment.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court permitted petitioners undergoing ART treatment as of 25.01.2022 to continue their treatment notwithstanding the upper age limits prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act. It directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to review the upper age limits and the absence of transitional provisions and to recommend necessary amendments to the Central Government within three months. Petitioners yet to commence treatment must await the Central Government's decision on these issues. The Court reserved liberty for petitioners to approach it later if necessary.
Implications: This decision protects the reproductive rights of those already undergoing ART treatment at the time of the Act's commencement, preventing abrupt disruption. It does not strike down the prescribed upper age limits but identifies the need for policy review and legislative amendments. No new constitutional precedent on the validity of the age limits was established; rather, the Court emphasized procedural fairness and the role of the National Board in ensuring regulation aligns with rights and practical considerations.
"CR"
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 24058 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 NANDINI K
AGED 54 YEARS
WIFE OF A M MOHAN KUMAR,
'ASHIRWAD', VELLINEZHI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679504
2 A.M. MOHAN KUMAR
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF O SANKARAN NAIR,
'ASHIRWAD', VELLINEZHI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679504
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
A.MEGHA
NAYANPALLY RAMOLA(MAH/6224/2014), AMICUS CURIE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI , PIN - 110001
2 THE DIRECTOR
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI (ADDRESS OF R2 IS
CORRECTED AS THE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL MEDICAL
COMMISSION,POCKET-14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE-
I, NEW DELHI-110 077 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 29- 07-2022 IN IA NO.1/2022 IN WP(C)
NO.24058/2022.), PIN - 110077
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001
4 THE DIRECTOR
1
-2-
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
( ADDRESS OF R4 IS CORRECTED AS THE REGISTRAR,
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING,
RED CROSS ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANANTHAPURAM-695 035.
AS PER THE ORDER DATED 29-07-2022 IN IA NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) NO.24058/2022, PIN - 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
MALINI K. MENON, CGC
SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE MEDICAL
COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 24508 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 K. SNEHALATHA
AGED 57 YEARS
WIFE OF GOPALAKRISHNAN,
'VADAKKUMMURY HOUSE', CHOROTTUR ROAD, MANISSERI PO, VANIYAMKULAM - II, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679521
2 V. GOPALAKRISHNAN
AGED 64 YEARS
SON OF O SANKARAN NAIR,
'VADAKKUMMURY HOUSE', CHOROTTUR ROAD, MANISSERI PO, VANIYAMKULAM - II, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679521
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
-4-
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH (RCH)
OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
JAGADEESH LAKSHMAN CGC
SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE MEDICAL
COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C). 25078/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 25078 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 REEMA V
AGED 39 YEARS
WIFE OF SURENDRAN NAIR,
'KANNAMPLETH', THAZHAVA S W, THAZHAVA PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM., PIN -
690523
2 SURENDRAN NAIR V.K
AGED 61 YEARS
SON OF KARTHYAYANI AMMA,
'VILAVITH HOUSE', NEAR VILAVITH BHAGAVATHI
TEMPLE,,
VATTAKKATTUPADY, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683542
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
-6-
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS
ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ, SC
CGC V.GIRISHKUMAR
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-7-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 26011 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 P. SHEEBA PAUL
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O.SIMON ANTHONY, ELEVATHINGAL, KONNU ROAD, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683572
2 SIMON E.A
AGED 58 YEARS
ELEVATHINGAL, KONNU ROAD, ANGAMALY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683572
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
-8-
MEDICINE,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN -
682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022, 25078/2022
AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 26035 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 USHA ANITHA ABRAHAM
AGED 51 YEARS
WIFE OF RENU THOMAS,
'THAYIL PUTHENVEEDU', THUMPAMON PO, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689572
2 RENU THOMAS
AGED 51 YEARS
SON OF P T THOMAS,
'THAYIL PUTHENVEEDU', THUMPAMON PO, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689572
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELRAFE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
-10-
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,MDISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM,PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA
, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA.
, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
VISHNU RAJAGOPAL
N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC VISHNU RAJAGOPAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 26066 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 KOCHURANI MATHEW
AGED 51 YEARS
WIFE OF ROY JOSEPH,
THEKKEL, KOZHUVANAL P O,
PULIYANNOOR, KOTTAYAM.
, PIN - 686573
2 ROY JOSEPH
AGED 54 YEARS
HUSBAND OF KOCHURANI MATHEW,
THEKKEL, KOZHUVANAL P O,
MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM
, PIN - 686573
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
GIRISH KUMAR M S
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
-12-
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS
ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C). 25078/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-13-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 26559 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHYMA
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF UMESH KUMAR,
'KUNNATH HOUSE', PULINTHANAM, ENANALLOOR, NORTH BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673015
2 UMESH KUMAR
AGED 56 YEARS
SON OF INDRANI,
'MADHAVAM', KUNNOTH, KAKKOTI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673611
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
-14-
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE, COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS
ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
VISHNU JAYAPALAN
N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC VISHNU J
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-15-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 26563 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 GRACY BENNY
AGED 56 YEARS
WIFE OF BENNY MATHAI,
'PALLITHAZHATHU', PULINTHANAM, ENANALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM , PIN - 686671
2 BENNY MATHAI
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF MATHAI,
'PALLITHAZHATHU', PULINTHANAM, ENANALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686671
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
-16-
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 5. THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-17-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 27099 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHIBYMOL M
AGED 55 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF KAUSALYA MADHAVAN,
'MUKALETHUPARAMBIL', VETTICKAL PO,
THIRUVANIYOOR, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM.
, PIN - 682314
2 UNNINARAYANAN O
AGED 56 YEARS
SON OF GANGADHARAN NAIR,
'PUNATHIL', CHOOLUR,
NIT CAMPUS PO, KOZHIKODE
, PIN - 673601
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
1. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
-18-
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN MEDICINE
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
6 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
Kiran M.S., CGC
SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE MEDICAL
COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-19-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 27188 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHYLEJA S
AGED 48 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF C N SIVAKUMAR,
'CHITTETTU PADINJAREMURIYIL, PATHANAD, KANGAZHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686541
2 HEMANT KUMAR R
AGED 55 YEARS
SON OF R RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
TC 28/1348, MAIDAN VILLA,
HINDU MISSION ROAD, GPO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
-20-
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN MEDICINE
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
6 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE
MEDICAL COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR, N.RAGHURAJ,
SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-21-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 27212 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 LAILA
AGED 50 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF ABDUL KHADER,
'MAILADUMPARA PLAVILA VEEDU',
VALIYAKALUNGU, PARANDODE PO, ARYANAND,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542
2 SHAHUL HAMEED A
AGED 61 YEARS
SON OF ABUBAKKAR KUNJU,
'SHAJINA MANZIL', MALAYANTHERI, PARANDODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695542
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE CHAIRMAN
NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI , PIN - 110077
3 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
-22-
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE REGISTRAR
KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
MEDICINE,COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS
ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN - 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
S.JUSTUS
SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE MEDICAL
COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-23-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 27216 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 OMANA M
AGED 50 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF MARY, 'UDAYA BHAVAN',
CHERUVALLY, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL, SANTHIGIRI PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695589
2 JAYAKUMAR V
AGED 59 YEARS
SON OF VELAYUDHAN PILLAI,
'VEMOOTTILVEEDU', POOLANTHARA, SANTHIGIRI PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695589
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN MEDICINE
-24-
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
6 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
N.J.ASHWIN,CGC
SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE MEDICAL
COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-25-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 29282 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SANGEETHA JOBY
AGED 51 YEARS
WIFE OF JOBY S URALATH,
'URALATH HOUSE', NANDHI, VELLANI PO, KARALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680701
2 JOBY S URALATH
AGED 54 YEARS
SON OF SUBRAMANIAN,
'URALATH HOUSE', NANDHI, VELLANI PO, KARALAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680701
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN,
POCKET - 14, SECTOR 8, DWARAKA PHASE - I, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110077
3 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 KERALA STATE MEDICAL COUNCIL FOR MODERN
-26-
MEDICINE, REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD, NEAR
GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR,
COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, RED CROSS ROAD,
NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695035
5 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
6 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV SHRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, KERALA STATE
MEDICAL COUNCILS
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-27-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 29646 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHEENA
AGED 41 YEARS
WIFE OF PRAKASAN,
'EDAKKATT HOUSE',
EDAKKARA PO, PUNNAYUR,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680518
2 PRAKASAN
AGED 55 YEARS
SON OF VASU,
'EDAKKATT HOUSE',
EDAKKARA PO, PUNNAYUR
THRISSUR, PIN - 680518
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
-28-
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673 BY ADV MINI GOPINATH -CGC .
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-29-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 30545 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SUCHITHRA BABU
AGED 48 YEARS
WIFE OF M P BABU,
'CHAITHRAM',
VALLICODE PO,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689642
2 M.P. BABU
AGED 59 YEARS
SON OF PRABHAKARAN,
'CHAITHRAM',
VALLICODE PO,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689642
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
-30-
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGUHURAJ
BY ADV P.VANDANA
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-31-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 31769 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SHARMILA P.M.
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF BABU K,
'KAYANEDATH', MUTHAMBI,
NADERI PO, ARIKKULAM,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 BABU K
AGED 56 YEARS
SON OF UNNARAKKUTTY,
'KAYANEDATH', MUTHAMBI,
NADERI PO, ARIKKULAM,
KOZHIKODE., PIN - 673020
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
-32-
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-33-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 32268 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 GIGI VARGHESE
AGED 52 YEARS
WIFE OF JAMES GEORGE,
VALLAPURACKAL KANYAKONIL', PACHA,
CHEKKIDIKKADU PO, EDATHUA,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689573
2 JAMES GEORGE
AGED 52 YEARS
SON OF A O GEORGE,
'EDATHIPARAMPIL HOUSE', PARUMALA PO, THIRUVALLA, KADAPRA, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
689626
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
NEETHU S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH
-34-
("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-35-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 32275 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 DR. SUNITHA MONI
AGED 56 YEARS
WIFE OF ASOK LAL G,
TC 4/1397, YGRA 2,
KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
2 ASOK LAL G
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF P GANESAN,
TC 4/1397, YGRA 2,
KURAVANKONAM, KOWDIAR PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
NEETHU S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH
-36-
("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA , PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-37-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 32329 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SABIRA
AGED 49 YEARS
WIFE OF MAMMAD KOYA,
'ERAVATTUKANDY', KAKKANCHERI, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673620
2 MAMMAD KOYA
AGED 57 YEARS
SON OF IMPICHIMOITHY,
'ERAVATTUKANDY', KAKKANCHERI, ULLIYERI, KOZHIKODE , PIN - 673620
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
NEETHU S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI , PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
-38-
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-39-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 33128 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 RAJANI JAYAKRISHNAN
AGED 49 YEARS
WIFE OF JAYAKRISHNAN C N,
'VADAKKEKARA', ANANDAPURAM PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680305
2 JAYAKRISHNAN C.N.
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF C KELU,
'VADAKKEKARA', ANANDAPURAM PO, THRISSUR, PIN - 680305
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER,
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
-40-
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV N.RAGHURAJ
BY ADV DEEPA RAJESH
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-41-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 33165 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SREELAJA V
AGED 48 YEARS
WIFE OF C K PADMAGIREESAN,
SREENIVAS', MEPPAYIL PO, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104
2 C.K.PADMAGIREESAN
AGED 56 YEARS
SON OF C KELU,
SREENIVAS', MEPPAYIL PO, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673104
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
-42-
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
BY ADV SMT.M.SHAJNA, CGC
ADV.N.RAGURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY;
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-43-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 35095 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 M.K.SHERMILA
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF ASOKAN K S,
'MADATHUM KANDIYIL HOUSE', NELLUNNI,
MATTANNUR PO, CHAVASSERY,
THALASSERY, KANNUR, PIN - 670702
2 ASOKAN K.S.
AGED 53 YEARS
SON OF KRISHNA PILLAI,
'SARADABHAVAN', NEAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, CHIRAYINKEEZHU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695304
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
NEETHU S.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH
-44-
("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-45-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 35582 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 REMYA REMESH
AGED 40 YEARS
WIFE OF AJITH KUMAR V S,
'VETTARMADATHIL', KUDAYATHOOR, IDUKKI, PIN - 685590
2 AJITH KUMAR V S
AGED 59 YEARS
SON OF SANKARA PILLA,
'VETTARMADATHIL', KUDAYATHOOR, IDUKKI, PIN - 685590
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH")
OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
-46-
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-47-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 35841 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 A.R SHYJA
AGED 55 YEARS
WIFE OF DR, HARIHARAN,
'KURUVAM CHIRA', KURUPPAMKULANGARA, CHERTHALA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA - 688 539
2 DR. HARIHARAN
AGED 67 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN,
'KURUVAM CHIRA', KURUPPAMKULANGARA, CHERTHALA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688539
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
-48-
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
N.RAGHRAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-49-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 35900 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 INDIRA G
AGED 49 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF GOVINDAN V S,
880, 'MAMPARAMBIL', A N PURAM, THIRUVAMPADY PO, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688002
2 CHANDRAN K.N.
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF NARAYANAN,
'KAROORPARAMBIL', KODAR LANE,
ARAKULAM WEST, KODUNGALLOOR PO,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680664
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
-50-
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-51-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 35922 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 REMA P
AGED 50 YEARS
WIFE OF SIVADASAN P V, 'THIRUVATHIRA', PUNTHALA PO, VENMONY, ALAPPUZHA - 689 509, PIN - 689509
2 SIVADASAN P.V
AGED 61 YEARS
SON OF K VASU, 'THIRUVATHIRA', PUNTHALA PO, VENMONY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689509
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
-52-
ERNAKULAM, KERALA , PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE PVT. LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA , PIN - 686673
BY ADV SHAIJU K.S., CGC
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; N.RAGHURAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-53-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 36347 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 JOMON C.V.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O C.I. VARGHESE, CHAKRAMAKKIL HOUSE, PALUVAI P.O., THRISSUR , PIN - 680522
2 SUNI JOMON
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O JOMON C.V., CHAKRAMAKKIL HOUSE, PALUVAI P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680522
BY ADVS.
ALEX.M.SCARIA
BEAS K. PONNAPPAN
A.J.RIYAS
SARITHA THOMAS
ALEN J. CHERUVIL
SAHL ABDUL KADER
SANJITH KUMAR R.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695001
3 THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY FORMED U/S 12 OF THE
ART (R) ACT, 2021
REPRESENTED BY VICE CHAIRPERSON - DR. PREETHI,
-54-
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW ),
PALAYAM - AIRPORT ROAD, NEAR GENERAL HOSPITAL
ROAD JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA , PIN
- 695035
4 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH (RCH)
OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PARK
AVENUE, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN -
682011
5 THE AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
PONEKKARA P.O., KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR, PIN - 682041
BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-55-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA,
1944
WP(C) NO. 37145 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SUDHA
AGED 51 YEARS
WIFE OF KUNHIRAMAN,
'CHAVAYANGATT MEETHAL', KAVIL PO, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE , PIN - 673614
2 KUNHIRAMAN
AGED 58 YEARS
SON OF CHANGARAN,
'CHAVAYANGATT MEETHAL', KAVIL PO, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE , PIN - 673614
BY ADVS.
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
V.S.VARALEKSHMI
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE & CHILD HEALTH ("RCH") OFFICER
DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,
PARK EVE, MARINE DRIVE,
-56-
ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN - 682011
4 SABINE HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTRE PVT.LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
PEZHAKKAPPALLY PO, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686673
ADV.N.RAGHURAJ
OTHER PRESENT:
AMICUS CURAIE RAMOLA NAYANPALLY; DSGI S.MANU;GP RIYAL DEVASSY; CGC V.GIRISH KUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).24508/2022 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 19.12.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-57-
"CR"
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19thday of December, 2022
[WP(C) Nos.24058/2022, 24508/2022, 25078/2022, 26011/2022, 26035/2022, 26066/2022, 26559/2022, 26563/2022, 27099/2022, 27188/2022, 27212/2022, 27216/2022, 29282/2022, 29646/2022, 30545/2022, 31769/2022, 32268/2022, 32275/2022, 32329/2022, 33128/2022, 33165/2022, 35095/2022, 35582/2022, 35841/2022, 35900/2022, 35922/2022, 36347/2022, 37145/2022]
The writ petitions are filed by couples undergoing or intending to undergo assisted reproductive services, driven by the desire to have children. The petitioners challenge the upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 ('the ART Act' for short), which prohibits the application of ART services to persons above the
-58-
prescribed age limit. According to the petitioners, prescription of the upper age limit under Section 21 (g) of the ART Act is irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of their right to reproduction, acknowledged as a fundamental right. They therefore want Section 21(g) of the ART Act, to the extent it prescribes an upper age limit for availing assisted reproductive technology services, to be declared unconstitutional.
2. Heard Advs.Akash Sathyanandan and Alex Scaria for the petitioners, S.Manu, the Deputy Solicitor General assisted by V. Girish Kumar, for the Central Government, Government Pleader Riyal Devassy for the State Government, N.Raguraj for the Kerala State Medical Council and Ramola Nayanpally, the amicus curiae.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no rationale in prescribing an upper age limit of 55 for men and
-59-
50 for women. It is submitted that, prior to the introduction of the ART Act, the 'National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in India' ('the National Guidelines' for short), prepared by the Indian Council for Medical research ("ICMR") and National Academy of Medical Sciences (NAMS) was in force. Chapter 3 of the National Guidelines dealt with the 'Code of Practice, Ethical Considerations and Legal Issues". Therein, under the head 'General Considerations' the prescription was only with respect to the minimum age for ART. As no upper age limit was prescribed in the guidelines, the petitioners had opted for ART services, without being unduly worried about their age. Some of the petitioners were in the midst of their treatment when the ART Act came into effect on 25.01.2022, bringing the treatment came to a sudden halt. This has put the petitioners under extreme emotional stress and
-60-
some are in the verge of mental breakdown.
4. It is pointed out that, while the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act introduced with a similar objective contains a transitional provision, the ART Act contains no such provision. It is contended that the rights of individuals to found a family is recognised as a human right by the United Nations and reproductive rights has been recognised as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by the Honourable Supreme Court also. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decisions in Suchita Srivastava and Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration [(2009) 9 SCC 1], K.S. Puttuswamy and another v Union of India [(2017) 10 SCC 1]
5. Responding with alacrity to this Court's request for assistance, learned amicus curiae has submitted a detailed report after exhaustive
-61-
reference to statutes, judgments, parliamentary debates, journal articles and interviews with doctors practicing infertility and reproductive medicine. According to the amicus curiae, the issue of limiting access to assisted reproductive techniques ought to be addressed from the psychological, ethical and social perspectives. From the psychological point of view, being restricted from accessing ART may lead to increased frustration of families who are unable to reproduce naturally. Ethically, objections may arise by measuring the value of life of the newborn against the risks associated with the mothers' advanced age. On the social perspective, it is to be noticed that, with the increased use of ART, administration of such technologies has gained a social value with demographic relevancy. Certain studies have shown that later parenthood is associated with a more stable family environment, a higher socio-economic position,
-62-
higher income and better living conditions as well as better parenting practices. However, concerns regarding the reduced physical capacity to meet the demands of parenthood, fear of premature parental loss, social stigma and absence of grandparents are projected as reasons for preferring parents of younger age. In addition to the above mentioned aspects, wider considerations such as higher success rates with repeated treatment cycles and role of the State in regulating reproduction also assumes relevance.
6. Referring to Clause 3.1.6 in the 129th report of the Department Related Parliament Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, it is pointed out that a Senior Consultant & Professor of AIIMS and a representative from the Department of Reproductive Medicine, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Vellore had submitted that the lower age limit for woman seeking ART
-63-
services should be more than 20 years and the upper age limit for both men and women should be decided based on factors like risk to maternal health due to pregnancy at advanced maternal age; care of child until 18 years and average life expectancy in India. It is submitted that except noting such suggestions, there was no discussion on the aspects by the experts. To highlight the impracticality in fixing the upper age limit, it is pointed out that, by reason of the upper age limit, a married woman below 50 years will not be permitted to undergo assisted reproductive services if her husband has crossed 55 years of age, while an unmarried woman can avail such service till she attains 50 years.
7. Learned amicus curiae suggested that, since the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board (National Board, constituted in terms of Section 15(1) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act is empowered to review
-64-
and monitor the implementation of the ART Act and recommend suitable changes, it will be apposite to direct the National Board to review the upper age limit and make necessary recommendations to the Central Government.
8. On behalf of the Central Government, it is submitted that the Department-Related Parliament Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare had considered all relevant aspects before prescribing the upper age limit. After due deliberation, based on inputs received from various stakeholders, the Committee recommended the age criteria of 21 to 50 years for women and 21 to 55 years for men to be the most suitable. The report of the Committee was placed before both the houses of Parliament and passed after due discussion. There is no irrationality in prescribing the upper age limit and no scope for interference with the provisions of a well thought out and well intended legislation.
-65-
9. Before proceeding to decide the constitutionality of Section 21(g), it is essential to have an idea about the conception, evolution and introduction of the ART Act. For this purpose, it is necessary to note that the benefits of assisted reproductive techniques came into focus with the birth of Louise Brown, the world's first test tube baby, on 25th July, 1978. About two months later, the world's second and India's first IVF baby, Kanupriya @ Durga was born in Kolkata. Since then, the field of assisted reproductive technology has grown exponentially and India has become one of the major centres for ART services. This gave rise to a multitude of legal, ethical and social issues, in the absence of any prescribed standards or protocols. The Central Government was therefore prompted to call upon the ICMR to draft the National Guidelines for Accreditation, Supervision and Regulation of ART Clinics in
-66-
India. Later, the Law Commission of India presented its 228th report, recommending active legislative intervention to facilitate the correct use of ART technology and legalisation of surrogacy. Accordingly, the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare submitted the 102nd report on the Surrogacy Regulation Bill. The Committee observed that along with Surrogacy Regulation, there is an urgent need to regulate ART Clinics across the country. Consequently, the ART (Regulation) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 14.09.2020 and referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare. The Standing Committee sought the views of stakeholders and Governments and presented the 129threport on the ART (Regulation) Bill, 2020 before the Parliament on 19.03.2021. The Bill was passed on 01.12.2021 and the Act came into force on 25.01.2022.
-67-
10. The objective of the ART Act, as discernible from its preamble, is to regulate and supervise the assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks to prevent misuse and ensure safe and ethical practice of Assisted Reproductive Technology Service etc. As per Section 2(1)(a) of the Act, "assisted reproductive technology", with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman."
Section 2(1)(e) defines "commissioning couple" as an infertile married couple who approach an assisted reproductive technology clinic or assisted reproductive technology bank for obtaining the authorised services of that clinic or bank. Section 2(1)(j) defines "infertility" as the inability to conceive after one year of
-68-
unprotected coitus or other proven medical condition preventing a couple from conception. Section 2(1)(u) defines a "woman" to mean any woman above the age of twenty-one years who approaches an assisted reproductive technology clinic or assisted reproductive technology bank for obtaining the authorised services of the clinic or bank. Section 21 of the Act requires the ART clinics and banks to perform certain enumerated duties. As per Section 21(g), the clinics shall apply the assisted reproductive technology services, (i) to a woman above the age of twenty-one years and below the age of fifty years and (ii) to a man above the age of twenty- one years and below the age of fifty-five years.
11. Having carefully perused the report of the Parliamentary Committee, I find merit in the contention that the prescription of upper age limit is made without much discussion. In the 129threport of the Parliamentary Committee,
-69-
except referring to the suggestion put forth by the experts regarding the need for prescribing the upper age limit for women/men, there is no discussion on the relevant aspects. The Parliamentary debates on the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Bill, 2020 also does not reveal any discussion on the age factor of the commissioning couple. Be that as it may, absence of deliberation by the legislature is not sufficient to hold a statutory provision to be unconstitutional. There could have been discussion regarding the absence of international conventions or treaties regulating ART. Another factor of relevance is that in most of the countries providing ART services, the practice is regulated by domestic legislation, guidelines or both. Countries like Estonia, Greece and Netherlands has set the mother's age limit at 50 years, the Czech Republic at 49 years, Belgium, Bulgeria, Denmark and Ireland at 45 years. At the
-70-
same time, countries like France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and UK do not have a specified age limit, but prescribes that the maximum age limit of the mother shall be within the natural reproductive age of a woman. Particularly, the father's age limit is not considered as a factor except in France and Sweden. It is also worthwhile to note that while some studies find advanced paternal age to be having a negative impact on ART outcome, others are of opinion that it has no impact at all. In most cases, it is advised to do pre-implantation genetic testing for embryos creating using older father's sperm or aneuploidy screening of sperm cells taken from men of advanced age. As the ART Act mandates pre-implantation genetic testing for embryos, a significant part of the apprehensions pertaining to sperm health of older men stands allayed. These are some of the relevant aspects which could have been taken into consideration
-71-
while fixing the upper age limit for availing ART services.
12. On the contention that the State cannot regulate the reproductive choices of its citizens, it may be worthwhile to refer to Article 16(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, extracted hereunder;
"Article 16(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." In Suchita Srivastava (supra), the Apex Court held reproductive choice of women to be a dimension of her personal liberty. The contextually relevant portion of the judgment reads as under;
"22. There is no doubt that a woman's right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of "personal liberty" as
-72-
understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as to abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman's right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected. This means that there should be no restriction whatsoever on the exercise of reproductive choices such as a woman's right to refuse participation in sexual activity or alternatively the insistence on use of contraceptive methods. Furthermore, women are also free to choose birth control methods such as undergoing sterilisation procedures. Taken to their logical conclusion, reproductive rights include a woman's entitlement to carry a pregnancy to its full term, to give birth and to subsequently raise children. However, in the case of pregnant women there is also a
"compelling State interest" in protecting the life of the prospective child. Therefore, the termination of a pregnancy is only permitted when the conditions specified in the applicable statute have been fulfilled. Hence, the provisions of the MTP Act, 1971 can also be viewed as reasonable restrictions that have been placed on the exercise of reproductive choices."
-73-
Later in K.S. Puttuswamy(supra), the Constitution Bench declared family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation as integral to the dignity of an individual. Paragraph 298 of the judgment is extracted hereunder for easy reference;
"298. Privacy of the individual is an essential aspect of dignity. Dignity has both an intrinsic and instrumental value. As an intrinsic value, human dignity is an entitlement or a constitutionally protected interest in itself. In its instrumental facet, dignity and freedom are inseparably intertwined, each being a facilitative tool to achieve the other. The ability of the individual to protect a zone of privacy enables the realisation of the full value of life and liberty. Liberty has a broader meaning of which privacy is a subset. All liberties may not be exercised in privacy. Yet others can be fulfilled only within a private space. Privacy enables the individual to retain the autonomy of the body and mind. The autonomy of the individual is the ability to make decisions on vital matters of concern to life. Privacy has not been couched as an independent fundamental right. But that
-74-
does not detract from the constitutional protection afforded to it, once the true nature of privacy and its relationship with those fundamental rights which are expressly protected is understood. Privacy lies across the spectrum of protected freedoms. The guarantee of equality is a guarantee against arbitrary State action. It prevents the State from discriminating between individuals. The destruction by the State of a sanctified personal space whether of the body or of the mind is violative of the guarantee against arbitrary State action. Privacy of the body entitles an individual to the integrity of the physical aspects of personhood. The intersection between one's mental integrity and privacy entitles the individual to freedom of thought, the freedom to believe in what is right, and the freedom of self- determination. When these guarantees intersect with gender, they create a private space which protects all those elements which are crucial to gender identity. The family, marriage, procreation and sexual orientation are all integral to the dignity of the individual. Above all, the privacy of the individual recognises an inviolable right to determine how freedom shall be exercised. An individual may
-75-
perceive that the best form of expression is to remain silent. Silence postulates a realm of privacy. An artist finds reflection of the soul in a creative endeavour. A writer expresses the outcome of a process of thought. A musician contemplates upon notes which musically lead to silence. The silence, which lies within, reflects on the ability to choose how to convey thoughts and ideas or interact with others. These are crucial aspects of personhood. The freedoms under Article 19 can be fulfilled where the individual is entitled to decide upon his or her preferences. Read in conjunction with Article 21, liberty enables the individual to have a choice of preferences on various facets of life including what and how one will eat, the way one will dress, the faith one will espouse and a myriad other matters on which autonomy and self-determination require a choice to be made within the privacy of the mind. The constitutional right to the freedom of religion under Article 25 has implicit within it the ability to choose a faith and the freedom to express or not express those choices to the world. These are some illustrations of the manner in which
-76-
privacy facilitates freedom and is intrinsic to the exercise of liberty. The Constitution does not contain a separate article telling us that privacy has been declared to be a fundamental right. Nor have we tagged the provisions of Part III with an alpha-suffixed right to privacy:
this is not an act of judicial redrafting. Dignity cannot exist without privacy. Both reside within the inalienable values of life, liberty and freedom which the Constitution has recognised. Privacy is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. It is a constitutional value which straddles across the spectrum of fundamental rights and protects for the individual a zone of choice and self- determination."
(emphasis supplied)
13. Thus, the personal choice of individuals to procreate and build family is held to be a facet of his/her fundamental right. This right is being restricted by fixing an upper age limit for availing ART services. While the State has the power to impose reasonable restrictions, such restriction can always be tested on the
-77-
touchstone of liberty guaranteed under Article
21. It is now settled that legislative action can be challenged on the ground of lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or any other constitutional provision and manifest arbitrariness. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India [(2017) 9 SCC 1], the Apex Court has termed 'manifest arbitrariness' as something done by the legislature capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle. Also, when something is done which is excessive and disproportionate, such legislation would be manifestly arbitrary. At the same time, this Court has to be mindful of the principle of 'presumption of constitutionality of legislations'. On a careful balancing of the above principles, I find it difficult to hold the prescription of upper age limit in Section 21(g) to be so excessive and arbitrary as to warrant judicial interference. At the same time, I find
-78-
the imposition of age restriction, without even a transitional provision, to be irrational and arbitrary. As mentioned earlier, some of the petitioners were undergoing assisted reproductive technology services when the ART Act was introduced on 25.01.2022. The prohibition under Section 21(g), if understood to be preventing even continuance of ART services already commenced, would definitely amount to unreasonable and unjustified restriction on the reproductive choice of the commissioning couple and would militate against the liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
14. As rightly pointed out by the amicus curiae, Section 5 of the Act confers the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board with the power to advice the Central Government on policy matters relating to assisted reproductive technology. In my opinion, the impact of the prescription of upper age limit
-79-
on the liberty of individuals is a matter which the National Board should bring to the notice of the Central Government, so as to effectuate a detailed discussion on the subject and pave the way for necessary amendments.
Based on the above discussion, the following directions are issued;
(i) Those among the petitioners who were undergoing ART services as on 25.01.2022 shall be permitted to continue their treatment.
(ii) The National Board shall alert the Central Government about the need for having a re-look at the upper age limit prescribed in Section 21(g) of the Act.
(iii) The National Board shall also bring to the notice of the Central Government the requirement of including a transitional provision in the ART Act.
(iv) The above directions shall be complied by the National Board within three months of
-80-
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(v) Those among the petitioners who are yet to commence their ART treatment shall await the decision of the Central Government on the upper age limit and the transitional provision.
(vi) The liberty of the petitioners to approach this Court at a later stage, if so necessitated, is reserved.
I place on record my appreciation for the immense help rendered by the learned amicus curiae.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
-88-
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
-95-
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN
REPORT OF THE PELVIC REGION OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER, CONDUCTED AT AMBERNATH
DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE, AMBERNATH,
MAHARASHTRA, DATED 04.07.2014
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN
REPORT OF THE PELVIC REGION OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER, CONDUCTED AT THE BISHOP
ALAPATT MISSION HOSPITAL, KRANCHIRA,
KATTOOR, DATED 17.03.2016,
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN
REPORT OF THE ABDOMINAL REGION OF THE
1ST PETITIONER, CONDUCTED AT THE
BISHOP ALAPATT MISSION HOSPITAL,
KRANCHIRA, KATTOOR, DATED 17.10.2016
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN
REPORT OF THE UPPER ABDOMINAL REGION
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, CONDUCTED AT
THE BISHOP ALAPATT MISSION HOSPITAL,
KRANCHIRA, KATTOOR, DATED 16.11.2017
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ICSI PROTOCOL SUMMARY
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE
KARE CENTRE: INFERTILITY TREATMENT
CENTRE, THRISSUR, DATED 26.07.2018
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 'NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR
ACCREDITATION, SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF ART CLINICS IN INDIA' ("NATIONAL GUIDELINES"), PREPARED BY
THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
-97-
HOSPITAL, THRISSUR
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF
THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 17.02.2021,
ISSUED BY THE INFERTILITY TREATMENT
CENTRE, DISTRICT HOMOEOPATHIC
HOSPITAL, THRISSUR,
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ULTRA SOUND SCAN
REPORT OF THE ABDOMINAL REGION OF THE
1ST PETITIONER, CONDUCTED AT JEEVA
SPECIALITY LABORATORY, THRISSUR, AT
THE DIRECTION OF THE HOMOEOPATHIC
PRACTITIONER OF THE JANANI PROGRAM,
DATED 15.03.2021
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 'NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR
ACCREDITATION, SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF ART CLINICS IN INDIA' ("NATIONAL GUIDELINES"), PREPARED BY
THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of relevant extract of Report No. 129 presented to Rajya Sabha on 19.03.2021
-100-
OF THE 1ST PETITIONER, ISSUED BY BABY
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LTD, KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE THE FERTILITY
HORMONAL ASSAY REPORT OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER, ISSUED BY THE NAHA'S
CENTRE FOR ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND
ENDOSCOPY, NAHAS HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM,
AND DATED 26.03.2019
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF IVF
PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON THE 1ST
PETITIONER AT THE NAHA'S CENTRE FOR
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND ENDOSCOPY,
NAHAS HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM, DATED
12.03.2019
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF IVF
PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON THE 1ST
PETITIONER AT THE NAHA'S CENTRE FOR
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND ENDOSCOPY,
NAHAS HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM, DATED
30.06.2020
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF IVF
PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON THE 1ST
PETITIONER AT THE NAHA'S CENTRE FOR
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND ENDOSCOPY,
NAHAS HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM, DATED
22.07.2021
Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMARY OF IVF
PROCEDURE CARRIED OUT ON THE 1ST
PETITIONER AT THE NAHA'S CENTRE FOR
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND ENDOSCOPY,
NAHAS HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM, DATED
09.10.2021
Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE USG SCAN REPORT OF
THE PELVIC REGION OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER DATED 28.01.2022, ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT HOSPITAL
Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 'NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR
ACCREDITATION, SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF ART CLINICS IN INDIA' ("NATIONAL GUIDELINES"), PREPARED BY
THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
-101-
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
-105-
("NATIONAL GUIDELINES"), PREPARED BY
THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
-108-
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
-114-
Exhibit1 P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF
THE 1ST PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT HOSPITAL, DATED 04.12.2021
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 'NATIONAL GUIDELINES FOR
ACCREDITATION, SUPERVISION AND
REGULATION OF ART CLINICS IN INDIA' ("NATIONAL GUIDELINES"), PREPARED BY
THE INDIAN COUNCIL FOR MEDICAL
RESEARCH ("ICMR") AND NATIONAL ACADEMY
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (NAMS), ON BEHALF
OF THE UNION MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, OF THE YEAR 2005
Alert