A division bench headed by Justice Shantunu Kemkar allowed the couple to make a representation to the respondents and asked the Centre to decide on it within three weeks.
The bench gave liberty to the respondents to file an affidavit in case they decided to reject the representation.
Since Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh is appearing on behalf of the Centre, the representation to the government would be forwarded through him.
Kumbhkoni also informed that the embryos had to be kept at a low temperature in cold storage at their (US couple's) own cost every day and thus they had to incur expenditure on this.
Almost a week ago, the same bench had directed the US couple to make DGFT and Ministry of Family Welfare as party respondents to their petition.
Kumbhkoni had argued that the government should not adopt an adversarial approach and must find out a solution to the problem.
"These are our embryos and what will the government do with them. We had brought them to India in accordance with the laws of this country and after seeking permission of the authorities. Now that surrogacy is banned in India, we want to take them back," the couple's lawyer had argued.
During the hearing of petition last month, the bench had asked the couple how they could file this petition because the Constitution gave such right only to Indian citizens.
However, Kumbhkoni argued that Article 21 of the Constitution gave such a right to every person, even to foreign nationals.
The petition said the couple tried to have a baby for
many years but failed. The doctors had advised them surrogacy. Accordingly, the American doctors, with the help of the couple's sperms and eggs, created the embryos and advised them to get a surrogate mother.
The couple had also obtained surrogacy visa and came to India by following the procedure.
In April 2015, the Indian Council for Medial Research had given no objection certificate to the couple to import their frozen embryos from USA. Accordingly, they were sent to India.
Meanwhile, in November 2015, the Centre announced a change in policy and banned surrogacy for foreign couples.
The couple then asked the hospital authorities to return their embryos but they refused to part with the embryos saying that import and export of embryos was banned in India as per the new policy rules.
The couple argued that taking back their embryos did not amount to exporting them and the authorities should not interpret or make policy decisions that were against the basic tenets of fairness, law and human rights.
Their lawyer had submitted that technically taking back the embryos was not an export because they were seeking to restore them back to the place from where they had originated.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
