On Friday, the bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy adjourned the matter and directed the petitioners to submit extra paperwork within the nature of scientific proof to help their claims.

Section 27 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act prescribes guidelines to be adopted by the assisted reproductive know-how banks for sourcing gametes whereas Section 21 talks in regards to the common duties of assisted reproductive know-how clinics and banks.

The petitioners contended that the provisions of the ART Act limit the variety of occasions that oocytes could be donated which leads to big wastage of oocytes and an astronomical enhance in prices and ready time. Thus, it has been submitted that the provisions had been introduced in with none software of thoughts. The petitioners additional contended that there can be a rise in therapy prices and a scarcity of donors if the donor is allowed to donate solely as soon as.

The petitioner additionally submitted that specifying age restrictions for donors is per se unlawful and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and in addition impacts a girl’s proper to make reproductive selections which additionally comes inside the dimension of private liberty.

Thus, in accordance with the petitioner though the thing of the legislature is to streamline the method of Assisted Reproduction, the obligatory provision of gamete assortment by an ART Bank makes all the means of acquiring donor gametes extra sophisticated and costly and isn’t in consonance with the thing and goal of the Act.

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

Case No: WP 33666 of 2022