Altruistic Surrogacy Contracts: Legal Analysis of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 and its Legal Implications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.16.4Keywords:
Free consent, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Lawful consideration, Specific performance, Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019Abstract
In India, the most recent development in the field of surrogacy is the passing of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019 by the Lok Shaba in August, 2019, which is yet to be passed in the Rajya Sabha. This Bill bans commercial surrogacy and only legalizes surrogacy that is altruistic in nature. This leads us to a question whether a contract between a surrogate mother and the intended parents is required even in the case of altruistic surrogacy. The paper is a detailed study of the altruistic surrogacy contract and highlights the need and the nature of such a contract. This paper questions the legality of an altruistic surrogacy contract and also emphasizes on the consequences that could be faced by either party in case of absence of a contract. As there is no current law which governs altruistic surrogacy or surrogacy agreements in particular, it would be appropriate to examine altruistic surrogacy in the light of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Law Commission Report and Indian Council of Medical Research Guidelines.
References
L.Yu. Fomina, Protection of the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life, 19, ERS, 98 (2016). 2 Hiranmaya Nanda, Surrogate Motherhood: A Ray of Hope, 5, IJAR (2015). 3 Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019, Bill No. 156 of 2019.4 Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019, Bill No. 156 of 2019. 5 Sandeep Kulshrestha, Indian Surrogates: Whether Laws Provide Room for It?, 2, IJIRMF, 208 (2016). 6 PyaliChaterjee, Role of Law Relating to Commercial Surrogacy in India and Protection of Surrogate Mother, 6, IJRSR, 6187 (2015). 7 THE ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES (REGULATION) Draft BILL, 2010, Acts of Parliament. 8 Lokesh Vasita, Altruistic Surrogacy: Is It a Viable Option? 1, JJFL 88, 90 - 93 (2018).9 IN RE: the Paternity of F.T. R. David J. Rosecky v. Monica M. Schissel, 2013 Wi 66, 35, 349 Wis. 2d 84, 833 N.W.2d 634. 10 In Re: Baby S. v. S.S., 2015 PA Super 244.11 §10, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act No. 9 of 1872, Acts of Parliament, 1972. 12 Rebecca Furtado, Surrogacy Contracts and the Indian Contract Act,IPLEADERS, June 28, 2016, available at https:// blog.ipleaders.in/ surrogacy-contracts-indian-contracts-act/ (last accessed on 29th October, 2019). 13 §14, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act No. 9 of 1872, Acts of Parliament, 1972.14 Saravanan S, Socio – Ethics of Surrogacy in India and Reproductive Justice, 6, IFJ, 23 – 31 (2018). 15 Suketu Shah, Issues of Surrogacy in India, 2 IJCH, 173 – 177 (2016).
Sohini Dey, Women have the right to decide on pregnancy: SC judge, THE BETTER INDIA, February 13, 2017, available at https://www.thebetterindia.com/86720/supreme-court-judge-aksikri-women-right-decide-pregnancy/ (Last accessed on 1st November, 2019). 17 IN RE: the Paternity of F.T. R. David J. Rosecky v. Monica M. Schissel, 2013 Wi 66, 35, 349 Wis. 2d 84, 833 N.W.2d 634.18 IN RE: the Paternity of F.T. R. David J. Rosecky v. Monica M. Schissel, 2013 Wi 66, 35, 349 Wis. 2d 84, 833 N.W.2d 634. 19 Ruchita Chakraborty, A Contract Beyond Contractual Framework: A Study of the Legality of Surrogacy Contracts in India, 1 IJR, 58 – 66 (2016).20 CW v. NT and Anr, [2013] EWHC 33 (Fam).21 Simran Agarwal and Lovish Garg, The new surrogacy law in India fails to balance regulation and rights, THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, avalaible at https:// blogs.lse.ac.uk/ humanrights/ 2016/11/23/the-new-surrogacy-law-in-india-fails-to-balance-regulation-and-rights/ (Last accessed on August 31, 2019).22Simran Agarwal and Lovish Garg, The new surrogacy law in India fails to balance regulation and rights, THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, available at https:// blogs.lse.ac.uk/ humanrights/2016/11/23/the-new-surrogacy-law-in-india-fails-to-balance-regulation-and-rights/ (Last accessed on August 31, 2019). 23A.G.R. v. D.R.H. & S.H., No. FD-09-1838—07 (N.J. Super. Ct. Chi. Div., Dec. 23, 2009).24 Stephanie Joan Becker v. State, (2013) 12 SCC 786. 25 National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 438. 26 Kulshrestha, supra note 5. 27 Jayanthi Bai and Ronak V.,Legal Ramifications of Regulating Surrogacy Contracts under Indian Contract Act, 3 SSIRJ 163 – 166 (2017).28 §2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act No. 9 of 1872, Acts of Parliament, 1972.29 Kulshrestha, supra note 5. 30 Id.31 Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019, Bill No. 156 of 2019. 32 §23, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Act No. 9 of 1872, Acts of Parliament, 1972. 33 Vasita, Supranote 8.34 In re Baby M, 217 N.J. Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1987). 35 Johnson v. Calvert, 851 P 2d 776 (1993).36 Chaterjee, Supranote 6.37Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India, (2008) 13 SCC 518. 38Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, AIR 2010 Guj 21.39P.Geeta Nagar v. Kerala Livestock Development Board, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 71.40Shah, Supranote 15. 41Ruchi Tirkey, Remedies for Breach of Contract, 6 IJSER, 42 – 46 (2018). 42Deborah S. Mazer, Born Breach: The Challenge of Remedies in Surrogacy Contracts, 28 YALE J.L.F, 211 – 241 (2017).43Abigail Lauren Perdue, For Love or Money: An Analysis of the Contractual Regulation of Reproductive Surrogacy, 27 JCHLP, 279 – 311 (2011).44R.K. BANGIA, INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, (14thedition. 2009). 45Michael J. Trebilcock, Critiques of the Limits of Freedom of Contract: A Rejoinder, 33.2Osgoode Hall LJ, 353-377(1995).46Carolyn Sappideen, The Surrogate Mother – A Growing Problem, 6 U.N.S.W.L.J., 79 - 102 (1983). 47Valerie L. Baker, Surrogacy: One Physician’s View of the Role of Law, 28 U.S.F.L, 603 - 612 (1994).
