Giving this direction, a bench headed by Justice Shantanu Kemkar posted the matter for hearing on October 24.
The judges were of the opinion that import and export regulations are being governed by Director General of Foreign Trade and it should be made a party. Moreover, the petition concerns embryos and hence Family Welfare department should be heard in this matter.
"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 lawyer argued.
Earlier, hearing a petition filed by the American couple who wants to take back the embryos to their country, the high court had served notices to the respondents and asked them to spell out the policy of the government on the issue.
However, Kumbhkoni argued that Article 21 of the Constitution gave such a right to every person, even to foreign national.
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 sent the embryos to India by a special courier (in a frozen state). All the embryos are currently lying in a hospital at Powai in Mumbai.
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.
Thereafter, the couple approached the Indian government which also refused to allow them take back the embryos saying that while banning surrogacy it had also banned import and export of foetus also.
Their lawyer 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
