In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court has granted an Indian couple, Harbir Kaur and Gurvinder Singh, permission to use the frozen sperm of their deceased son, Preet Inder Singh, for surrogacy. Surrogacy—where a woman carries a child for another couple—is often utilized by individuals facing challenges related to infertility or severe medical issues. The ruling stems from a lengthy four-year legal battle after Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi denied the couple access to their son’s sperm, which had been stored prior to his chemotherapy as a protective measure against infertility caused by his cancer treatment. The court’s approval represents a notable progression in the legal landscape surrounding reproductive rights in India.
The saga began in 2020 when Preet, diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, was advised by medical professionals to store his sperm before starting chemotherapy. Unmarried and only 30 at the time of his death in September 2020, Preet’s parents sought to access the frozen sperm to honor their son’s legacy. Upon their request being denied by the hospital, they took matters into their own hands and approached the Delhi High Court to secure legal rights over the sperm. The couple has expressed profound emotions following the court’s decision, describing it as a vital gift amidst their immense grief from losing their son.
In their plea to the High Court, the couple reassured the judges that they intended to raise any child born from Preet’s sperm and indicated that their daughters would take on parental responsibilities should anything happen to them. Justice Prathiba Singh presided over the case, emphasizing that Indian law does not explicitly forbid posthumous reproduction, especially when the donor had explicitly provided consent for the use of their sperm. The court highlighted that, under the Hindu Succession Act, the parents of the deceased individual qualify as legal heirs when no spouse or children are present.
The pivotal ruling confirmed that Kaur and Singh are legally entitled to the sperm, ensuring their late son’s legacy could continue through surrogate birth. Citing the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, which classifies the couple as “Class-1 legal heirs,” the judge underscored that this legal framework supports their claim, thus affirming their rights in this unique situation. Kaur poignantly shared her longing for her son, illustrating the emotional bond that persists even after his passing, and reflecting on how his memory continues to endure through their daily lives.
To respect the legal stipulations in India, where commercial surrogacy is not permitted, the family intends to pursue a familial arrangement for the surrogacy, with a relative stepping forward as the surrogate. Their decision indicates a desire to maintain closeness within the family structure throughout this process. Legal expert Suruchii Aggarwal highlighted that while the case is somewhat rare, it is not unprecedented, suggesting the possibility of a more expansive interpretation of reproductive rights in future instances.
Ultimately, this landmark ruling conveys a broader message about familial rights and the sanctity of individual legacies. With growing social recognition of diverse familial structures and the evolving dynamics of reproductive technology, this case could set a precedent for similar situations in India, where legal frameworks have struggled to keep pace with rapid societal changes in areas of fertility and personal rights. The court’s decision thus paves the way for future discussions around the ethical implications and rights associated with posthumous reproduction and surrogacy.
