Plea In Madras High Court Challenges Provisions Of Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act

On Friday, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy adjourned the matter and directed the petitioners to submit additional documents in the nature of scientific evidence to support their claims.

Section 27 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act prescribes rules to be followed by the assisted reproductive technology banks for sourcing gametes while Section 21 talks about the general duties of assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks.

The petitioners contended that the provisions of the ART Act restrict the number of times that oocytes can be donated which results in huge wastage of oocytes and an astronomical increase in costs and waiting time. Thus, it has been submitted that the provisions were brought in without any application of mind. The petitioners further contended that there would be an increase in treatment costs and a shortage of donors if the donor is allowed to donate only once.

The petitioner also submitted that specifying age restrictions for donors is per se illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and also affects a woman's right to make reproductive choices which also comes within the dimension of personal liberty.

Thus, according to the petitioner although the object of the legislature is to streamline the process of Assisted Reproduction, the mandatory provision of gamete collection by an ART Bank makes the entire process of obtaining donor gametes more complicated and expensive and is not in consonance with the object and purpose of the Act.

Case Title: S Shanmugalatha and others v Union of India and others

Case No: WP 33666 of 2022