[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: The institution of marriage must be protected and preserved in the country and cannot follow the model western countries where children born out of wedlock are not uncommon, the Supreme Court said on Monday while expressing reservation over the authorization single women take the surrogate mother path to becoming a mother.
While hearing the petition of a 44-year-old single woman who approached the court seeking permission to become a mother through surrogacy, which is not permitted under the law, Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih stated that an unmarried woman wearing a child out of wedlock was not the rule in Indian society, but an exception.
“It’s a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. That concerns us. We’re speaking from a welfare perspective of (the) child. Should the institution of marriage survive in the country or not? We are not like western countries. The institution of marriage must be protected. You can call us and call us conservative, and we accept it,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
The petitioner, who works for a multinational company, approached the court through her lawyer Shayamal Kumar challenging the validity of Section 2(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act which defines the “ woman of intention” like a widowed or divorced Indian woman. between 35 and 45 years old and intends to pursue the option of surrogacy. This implies that a single, unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.
At the start of the hearing, the bench explained to the woman that there were other ways to become a mother and suggested she get married or adopt a child. But her lawyer told her that she did not want to get married and that the waiting period for adoption was very long.
Observing that the institution of marriage could not be thrown out the window, the bench said, “It is difficult to bring up a child through surrogacy at the ripe old age of 44 years. You can’t have everything in life. Your client preferred to remain “Single. We are also concerned about society and the institution of marriage. We are not like the West where many children do not know their mother and father. We do not want children wander here without knowing their father and mother.”
“Science has progressed, but social norms have not, and for good reason,” the court said.
Challenging this provision, the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was discriminatory as an unmarried woman could also get married just to qualify under the law and after a certain time she could get divorced. But the court said it was not that easy. The court said it would hear his petition as well as a batch of other petitions challenging other provisions of the law.
“The restrictions are totally discriminatory and without any justification or reason…the said restrictions not only infringe upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner but also violate the basic human rights of an individual to start a family as recognized by the UN and reproductive rights…recognized as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21,” the petition states.
While hearing the petition of a 44-year-old single woman who approached the court seeking permission to become a mother through surrogacy, which is not permitted under the law, Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih stated that an unmarried woman wearing a child out of wedlock was not the rule in Indian society, but an exception.
“It’s a norm here to become a mother within the institution of marriage. Being a mother outside the institution of marriage is not the norm. That concerns us. We’re speaking from a welfare perspective of (the) child. Should the institution of marriage survive in the country or not? We are not like western countries. The institution of marriage must be protected. You can call us and call us conservative, and we accept it,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
The petitioner, who works for a multinational company, approached the court through her lawyer Shayamal Kumar challenging the validity of Section 2(s) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act which defines the “ woman of intention” like a widowed or divorced Indian woman. between 35 and 45 years old and intends to pursue the option of surrogacy. This implies that a single, unmarried woman is not allowed to become a mother through surrogacy.
At the start of the hearing, the bench explained to the woman that there were other ways to become a mother and suggested she get married or adopt a child. But her lawyer told her that she did not want to get married and that the waiting period for adoption was very long.
Observing that the institution of marriage could not be thrown out the window, the bench said, “It is difficult to bring up a child through surrogacy at the ripe old age of 44 years. You can’t have everything in life. Your client preferred to remain “Single. We are also concerned about society and the institution of marriage. We are not like the West where many children do not know their mother and father. We do not want children wander here without knowing their father and mother.”
“Science has progressed, but social norms have not, and for good reason,” the court said.
Challenging this provision, the petitioner’s counsel argued that it was discriminatory as an unmarried woman could also get married just to qualify under the law and after a certain time she could get divorced. But the court said it was not that easy. The court said it would hear his petition as well as a batch of other petitions challenging other provisions of the law.
“The restrictions are totally discriminatory and without any justification or reason…the said restrictions not only infringe upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner but also violate the basic human rights of an individual to start a family as recognized by the UN and reproductive rights…recognized as an aspect of personal liberty under Article 21,” the petition states.
[ad_2]