The Madras High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the scope of judicial scrutiny under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, holding that a Judicial Magistrate cannot revisit or invalidate an eligibility certificate issued by the competent statutory authority while deciding an application relating to the parentage and custody of a child to be born through surrogacy. The Court observed that the statutory framework entrusts different authorities with distinct responsibilities, and a Magistrate cannot assume the role of an appellate authority over administrative decisions taken by the Appropriate Authority.
In Sri Nandhini Devi @ Srinandhini Devi Saravanan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., Justice Shamim Ahmed not only resolved the dispute before the Court but also undertook a comprehensive examination of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, explaining its legislative purpose, procedural safeguards, and the respective roles of medical authorities, regulatory bodies, and judicial officers.
A Family’s Quest for Parenthood
The litigation arose from deeply personal circumstances. The petitioners, a married couple, had lost their only son in November 2024 due to cardiac arrest. Hoping to rebuild their family, they explored the option of altruistic surrogacy after the wife became medically incapable of carrying a pregnancy owing to the surgical removal of her uterus.
Following the procedure prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, the couple approached a recognised fertility centre. Their medical records and statutory documents were scrutinised by the Appropriate Authority, which issued them an Eligibility Certificate. A close relative also volunteered to act as the surrogate mother and obtained her own eligibility certificate after satisfying all legal requirements, including furnishing her husband’s written consent.
Having completed these statutory formalities, the parties approached the Judicial Magistrate under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) seeking an order recognising the intending couple as the legal parents of the child to be born and directing that the surrogate mother relinquish all parental rights after birth.
Why the Magistrate Declined the Request
Despite the statutory certificates already being issued, the Magistrate dismissed the application on two grounds. The Magistrate held that the intending mother had crossed the permissible age limit because she was over 50 years old when the application for eligibility was processed.
The Magistrate considered it fatal that the surrogate mother’s husband had not been examined before the Court, even though his written consent had already formed part of the statutory process.
These findings resulted in the rejection of the parentage application.
Questions That Reached the High Court
The revision petition required the High Court to answer several important questions concerning the operation of the Surrogacy Act:
- Can a Magistrate question an eligibility certificate already issued by the Appropriate Authority?
- Is examination of the surrogate mother’s husband mandatory?
- Does the statutory age limit of “23 to 50 years” include women who have completed 50 years but have not yet turned 51?
- What is the true extent of the Magistrate’s jurisdiction while deciding parentage under the Act?
Understanding the Surrogacy Framework
Before addressing these issues, the Court carefully examined the legislative architecture governing surrogacy in India.
It was observed that the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act establishes a structured regulatory mechanism involving specialised authorities, each entrusted with a clearly defined function. Medical Boards assess medical necessity, Appropriate Authorities verify statutory eligibility, surrogacy clinics ensure procedural compliance, and Magistrates issue orders concerning the legal parentage and custody of the child.
According to the Court, this compartmentalised structure demonstrates Parliament’s intention that each authority should discharge only the responsibilities specifically assigned to it.
Magistrate’s Role Is Limited
The High Court emphasised that the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) is narrowly confined.
The Magistrate is required only to pass an order concerning the parentage and custody of the child to be born through surrogacy. The statute does not authorise the Magistrate to undertake a fresh inquiry into the correctness of eligibility certificates already issued by specialised statutory authorities.
Justice Shamim Ahmed observed that permitting Magistrates to reassess such certificates would effectively convert them into appellate authorities, a role that the Surrogacy Act does not contemplate.
Eligibility Certificates Cannot Be Reopened
One of the most important principles laid down in the judgment concerns the legal status of eligibility certificates. The Court held that certificates granted by the Appropriate Authority and the District Medical Board enjoy a presumption of legality and validity. If any party wishes to challenge those certificates, the Act itself provides an appellate mechanism.
Unless a certificate has been:
- cancelled by a competent forum,
- obtained through fraud,
- issued without jurisdiction, or
- shown to be patently illegal,
the Magistrate must proceed on the basis that it remains valid.
The Court therefore concluded that the Magistrate had travelled beyond the limits of his jurisdiction by independently reassessing the intending mother’s eligibility.
Husband’s Examination Not Required
The High Court also rejected the Magistrate’s second ground for dismissal. It pointed out that while the surrogate mother’s husband is required to give consent during the statutory certification process, the Surrogacy Act nowhere mandates that the Magistrate should examine him during parentage proceedings.
Section 4(iii)(a)(II) specifically contemplates an application by the intending couple together with the surrogate mother. The provision neither requires the husband to be impleaded as a party nor directs that his evidence be recorded.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Magistrate had imposed a requirement which finds no place in the legislation.
Interpretation of the Upper Age Limit
Another important issue before the Court was the meaning of the expression “between the ages of 23 to 50 years.”
The Magistrate had interpreted this phrase to mean that a woman immediately became ineligible after completing 50 years.
The High Court disagreed. Relying upon statutory interpretation principles and judicial precedent, it held that a woman remains within the statutory age bracket throughout her fiftieth year and becomes ineligible only upon attaining the age of 51 years.
Since the intending mother had not yet turned 51 when the eligibility certificate was issued, the Appropriate Authority acted correctly in granting it.
Reliance on Kerala High Court Precedent
The Court extensively relied upon the Kerala High Court’s decision in Rajitha P.V. v. Union of India, which had interpreted the same provision.
That judgment held that the expression “23 to 50 years” includes the terminal age of 50, and therefore, eligibility continues until the woman reaches her fifty-first birthday.
The Madras High Court endorsed this interpretation, observing that any contrary reading would unnecessarily deprive intending parents of the opportunity to avail surrogacy despite remaining within the legislative framework.
A Beneficial Legislation Must Receive a Liberal Interpretation
Justice Shamim Ahmed repeatedly observed that the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act is intended to regulate ethical surrogacy rather than create procedural hurdles.
Its object is to protect:
- intending parents,
- surrogate mothers,
- children born through surrogacy, and
- the integrity of assisted reproductive procedures.
The Court cautioned against interpretations that defeat these objectives merely because of technical objections which find no support in the statutory language.
Reaffirming the Rights of Children Born Through Surrogacy
The judgment also reiterates the legal position regarding children born through surrogacy. Referring to Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, the Court noted that:
- the intending couple cannot abandon a child born through surrogacy under any circumstance; and
- such a child is deemed to be the biological child of the intending couple and enjoys every legal right available to a naturally born child.
Final Decision
Allowing the revision petition, the Madras High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and held that:
- the Magistrate had exceeded the jurisdiction conferred by the Surrogacy Act;
- eligibility certificates issued by the Appropriate Authority could not be reassessed during parentage proceedings;
- examination of the surrogate mother’s husband was not a statutory requirement; and
- the intending mother remained within the prescribed age limit under the Act.
The Court also recognised that the eligibility certificate had expired during the pendency of litigation and considered appropriate directions to ensure that the petitioners did not suffer prejudice solely because of judicial delay.
Why This Judgment Matters
The decision is likely to become an important precedent in surrogacy jurisprudence for several reasons. It clearly demarcates the functions of specialised statutory authorities and courts, ensuring that each authority acts only within its designated sphere. It also strengthens legal certainty by affirming that eligibility certificates cannot be casually reopened in collateral proceedings.
Most importantly, it reinforces a purposive interpretation of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, ensuring that deserving couples are not denied parenthood because of procedural overreach or technical objections unsupported by the statute.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s ruling serves as a significant reminder that judicial review must operate within the limits prescribed by legislation. By holding that a Magistrate cannot reassess an eligibility certificate while deciding parentage and custody, the Court has reaffirmed the statutory design of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, where specialised authorities determine eligibility, and the Magistrate performs a distinct, limited judicial function.
The judgment not only protects the rights of intending parents but also strengthens confidence in India’s regulated surrogacy framework by ensuring that statutory certifications, once validly issued, are respected unless set aside through the mechanism specifically provided under law.