Question Details

XVII. Surrogacy is defined by law as “a practice whereby one woman bears and gives birth to a child for an intending couple” and intends to hand over the child to them after the birth, as per the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (the “SRA”). The SRA restricts altruistic surrogacy to legally wedded infertile Indian couples. The couple is deemed eligible for surrogacy only if they have been married for five years. The SRA sets an age limitation for the couple. A husband must be between 26 and 55 years of age and a wife between 23 and 50 years. Further, Indian couples with biological or adopted children are prohibited from undertaking surrogacy, save for some exceptions such as mentally or physically challenged children, or those suffering from a life-threatening disorder or fatal illness. The SRA provides that the surrogate mother has to be a close relative of the couple (such as a sibling of one of the members of the couple), a married woman with a child of her own, aged between 25 and 35 years, who has been a surrogate only once in her life. Even within this category of people, commercial surrogacy is banned in India and that includes the “commercialisation of surrogacy services or procedures or its component services or component procedures”. The surrogate woman cannot be given payments, rewards, benefits or fees, “except the medical expenses and such other prescribed expenses incurred on the surrogate mother and the insurance coverage for the surrogate mother”.


A legal commentator points out some criticisms of the law. “Permitting limited conditional surrogacy to married Indian couples and disqualifying other persons on basis of nationality, marital status, sexual orientation or age does not pass the test of equality,” he writes. He adds that reproductive autonomy, inclusive of the right to procreation and parenthood is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The intending parents typically sign a contract with the surrogate. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (the “ICA”) provides that a valid contract has to be in writing, and signed in the presence of two witnesses. The ICA also provides that a contract that is prohibited by any other law will not be valid under the ICA.


Karan and Daniel are in a homosexual relationship. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, marriage is allowed only between heterosexual couples. As a result, Karan and Daniel are not married. However, they wish to have children and decide to go in for surrogacy. When they approach Queen’s clinic, they are informed that they do not meet the requirements for an intending couple under the SRA. Karan and Daniel wish to challenge the SRA for violating their constitutional right to non-discrimination. The non-discrimination clause under the Constitution of India reads: “No citizen shall be discriminated on the basis of sex, caste, religion, nationality, place of birth or any other ground”. Karan and Daniel argue that the SRA discriminates against them on the basis of sexual orientation, because it restricts surrogacy to heterosexual couples alone. Which of the following arguments would most strongly support their claim in court?

Options

A

The non-discrimination clause does not explicitly mention sexual orientation.

B

Discrimination on the basis of sex could include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

C

The non-discrimination clause is not restricted to explicitly mentioned grounds.

D

Surrogacy is restricted under the SRA to married couples, and only heterosexual couples can get married.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option B

Discrimination on the basis of sex could include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Solution :

The correct answer is: Discrimination on the basis of sex could include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


Step-by-Step Explanation:


1. Understanding the Legal Basis of the Challenge:
Karan and Daniel wish to challenge the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (SRA) on the ground that it violates the non-discrimination clause of the Constitution of India. They specifically argue that restricting surrogacy to legally wedded heterosexual couples discriminates against them based on their sexual orientation.


2. Analyzing the Constitutional Text provided in the Prompt:
The prompt states that the non-discrimination clause protects citizens from discrimination on the basis of “sex, caste, religion, nationality, place of birth or any other ground”.


3. Evaluating the Arguments:
To strongly support their claim in court that discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited under the "sex" parameter of non-discrimination, Karan and Daniel must establish a direct nexus between "sex" and "sexual orientation." Interpreting "sex" to broad-mindedly include "sexual orientation" provides the strongest legal bridge within the stated text to claim a constitutional violation under the grounds of non-discrimination on the basis of sex.


Thus, arguing that “Discrimination on the basis of sex could include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” directly strengthens their constitutional challenge.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...