SC Rules Surrogacy Age Limits Cannot Apply Retroactively

Supreme Court Rules Surrogacy Age Limits Cannot Apply Retrospectively, Protects Couples Who Froze Embryos Before 2022

Apex Court Upholds Reproductive Autonomy; Says Couples Retain Rights If Process Began Before Law

Judges Clarify Age Bar of 50 for Women and 55 for Men Will Not Affect Pre-2022 Surrogacy Cases

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 13, 2025:

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that the age restrictions under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 cannot be applied retrospectively to couples who had already begun the surrogacy process before the law came into effect on January 25, 2022.

The ruling provides relief to several couples who had created and frozen embryos prior to the Act’s enforcement but were later barred from proceeding because they exceeded the statutory age limits — 50 years for women and 55 years for men.

The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan emphasized that reproductive autonomy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and couples who had already initiated the process could not be denied parenthood due to a law that came into force later.

Background of the Case

The petitions were filed by couples who had started surrogacy procedures before January 25, 2022. At that time, there were no binding laws imposing age restrictions on intending parents.

These couples had already undergone Stage A of the process: extraction of gametes, creation of embryos, and freezing.
They were awaiting Stage B: transfer of embryos into the surrogate’s uterus.
With the enforcement of the Surrogacy Act, they suddenly became ineligible due to the new age limits.

The couples argued that this amounted to an unfair denial of their reproductive rights, since they had acted lawfully under the prevailing rules when they began the process.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court made several key observations:

Reproductive Autonomy as a Right
- The Court reaffirmed that the right to parenthood and reproductive autonomy is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Couples who cannot conceive naturally should not be denied surrogacy if they had already begun the process before the law changed.
No Retrospective Application
- The Court clarified that Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Act — which sets the age bar — does not have retrospective effect.
- Laws cannot take away rights that were already exercised under the previous legal framework.
Parity with Natural Conception
- The Court noted that there is no legal age restriction on natural conception.
- Therefore, imposing retrospective age limits on surrogacy would be discriminatory and unreasonable.
Vested Rights of Couples
- By completing Stage A, couples had already acquired vested rights to continue the process.
- Justice Viswanathan observed that parenthood in such cases was not merely a “hope” but a crystallized right once embryos were created and frozen.

Key Excerpts from the Judgment

Justice Nagarathna wrote:

“When there was no age restriction at Stage A, prior to the enforcement of the Act, the age restriction under the Surrogacy Act cannot be permitted to operate retrospectively, so as to frustrate not just the surrogacy procedure but also the right to have a surrogate child.”

Justice Viswanathan added:

“For couples who froze embryos before the Act, parenthood is not merely a hope but a vested right. The law cannot divest them of this right by retrospective application.”

Wider Implications of the Ruling

This judgment has far-reaching consequences for surrogacy law, reproductive rights, and statutory interpretation in India.

Relief for Affected Couples
- Couples who had frozen embryos before January 25, 2022, can now proceed with surrogacy, regardless of their current age.
Clarity on Statutory Operation
- The ruling reinforces the principle that laws are generally prospective unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Strengthening Reproductive Rights
- The Court has once again recognized reproductive autonomy as a core constitutional right, expanding the scope of Article 21.
Impact on Future Cases
- The decision will guide lower courts in handling disputes where new laws potentially affect ongoing medical or reproductive procedures.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts hailed the judgment as a progressive step. Advocate R. Venkataraman said:
“The Court has rightly protected couples from being unfairly penalized by retrospective application of law. This strengthens the jurisprudence on reproductive rights.”
Medical professionals welcomed the clarity. Dr. Meera Krishnan, an IVF specialist, noted:
“This ruling will bring relief to many couples who had invested emotionally and financially in the surrogacy process before the law changed.”
Policy analysts suggested that the government may need to revisit the age restrictions themselves, as the Court questioned why surrogacy should be limited by age when natural conception and adoption have different standards.

Public Response

The judgment has sparked widespread discussion:

Couples affected by the law expressed relief, calling it a “second chance at parenthood.”
Women’s rights groups praised the Court for recognizing reproductive autonomy.
Some critics, however, argued that age restrictions exist for medical and ethical reasons, and the government may need to balance autonomy with health risks.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling that surrogacy age limits cannot be applied retrospectively is a landmark in India’s reproductive rights jurisprudence. By protecting couples who had already begun the process before the law came into force, the Court has upheld the principles of fairness, autonomy, and non-retroactivity of laws.

This decision not only provides relief to affected families but also sets a precedent for how future laws should be interpreted when they intersect with fundamental rights. As India continues to refine its surrogacy regulations, the judgment underscores the need to balance legal safeguards with compassion and constitutional freedoms.