Can Single Women Below 35 Undergo Surrogacy? Karnataka High Court Seeks Centre's Reply, Declines Interim Relief To 32-Year-Old

The Karnataka High Court on Monday [June 29] issued notice to the Union of India and the State government on a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2(1)(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, insofar as it restricts single women below the age of 35 from availing the benefit of surrogacy.

For context, Section 2(1)(s) defines an “intending woman” which means an Indian woman who is either a widow or divorcee between the age of 35 to 45 years and who intends to avail the surrogacy.

Meanwhile for married women intending to opt for surrogacy, age bracket as per Section 4 is between 23 years to 50 years. 

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while issuing notice, refused to grant interim relief to the 32-year-old petitioner who sought a direction to the respondent authorities to issue Essentiality and Eligibility Certificates to undergo surrogacy by relaxing the age limitation in Section 2(1)(s).

“…Since Section 2(1)(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021 is called into question, issue notice to Centre… AG accepts notice for R2 and R3. Considering the petitioner's medical condition, the court asks the respondents to seek instructions at the earliest.. Relist on July 3.”, the court ordered.

The petitioner, through her counsel, argued that the age restriction under Section 2(1)(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition seeks to 'read down' the provision, which as of now, only permits intending women between the ages of 35 and 45 to avail of surrogacy services.

The petitioner pressed for an interim direction to the Karnataka State Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board [R2] and the District Medical Board [R3] to issue the requisite certificates.

However, the judge orally asked,“…But can we grant this interim relief now?”

On the other hand, the respondent counsel argued that considering that the validity of the provisions was extensively heard by a coordinate bench, and a batch of matters are pending on identical issues, no interim relief should be granted. “…probably the entire gamut of the Act is considered there (in the earlier batch of writ petitions)”, he said.

However, the petitioner emphasised that 'these identical issues have not been specifically pending' before the other bench.

Accordingly, the court decided to hear the matter further on July 3.

Case Title: Miss Vibha Balasubramanian v. Union of India & Ors

Case No: WP 19384/2026