A Case Sajjan Singh V State of Rajasthan

Only available on StudyMode
  • Topic: Surrogacy, Artificial insemination, Sperm donation
  • Pages : 6 (2259 words )
  • Download(s) : 1414
  • Published : January 21, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Top of Form

MANU/SC/8083/2008Equivalent Citation: AIR2009SC84, JT2008(11)SC150, 2008(4)KLT306(SC), (2009)3MLJ929(SC), (2008)41OCR708, 2008(13)SCALE76, (2008)13SCC518IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIAWrit Petition (C) No. 369 of 2008Decided On: 29.09.2008Appellants: Baby Manji Yamada Vs.

Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Hon'ble Judges: 
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma , JJ.Subject: CivilCatch WordsMentioned INActs/Rules/Orders:  Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 - Section 13; Constitution of India - Article 32Case Note: Constitution Rights of child Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (Constitution) Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 (CPCRA) Petition filed u/a 32, Constitution against directions of High Court by grandmother of appellant Held, constitution of National and state commissions for protection of child rights and children courts for providing speedy justice in offences against children and related matters provided under CPCRA No complaint made by anybody relating to child Direction given to any aggrieved person to approach Commission constituted under CPCRA Writ petition disposed ofRatio Decidendi:  Commission constituted under CPCRA has right to inquire into complaints or take action suo motu notice relating to violation of child rights and development of children and provide relief in such matters with appropriate authorities.JUDGMENTArijit Pasayat, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter for short 'the Constitution') raises some important questions.2. Essentially challenge is to certain directions given by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court relating to production/custody of a child Manji Yamada. Emiko Yamada, claiming to be grandmother of the child, has filed this petition. The Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court was filed by M/s. SATYA, stated to be an NG0, the opposite party No. 3 in this petition. The D.B. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 7829 of 2008 was filed by M/s. SATYA wherein the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs, State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, The Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan and the Superintendent of Police Jaipur City (East), Jaipur were made the parties. There is no dispute about Baby Manji Yamada having been given birth by a surrogate mother. It is stated that the biological parents Dr. Yuki Yamada and Dr. Ikufumi Yamada came to India in 2007 and had chosen a surrogate mother in Anand, Gujarat and a surrogacy agreement was entered into between the biological father and biological mother on one side and the surrogate mother on the other side. It appears from some of the statements made that there were matrimonial discords between the biological parents. The child was born on 25th July, 2008. On 3rd August, 2008 the child was moved to Arya Hospital in Jaipur following a law and order situation in Gujarat and she was being provided with much needed care including being breastfed by a woman. It is stated by the petitioner that the genetic father Dr. Ifukumi Yamada had to return to Japan due to expiration of his visa. It is also stated that the Municipality at Anand has issued a Birth Certificate indicating the name of the genetic father.3. Stand of respondent No. 3 was that there is no law governing surrogation in India and in the name of surrogation lot of irregularities are being committed. According to it, in the name of surrogacy a money making racket is being perpetuated. It is also the stand of the said respondent that the Union of India should enforce stringent laws relating to surrogacy. The present petitioner has questioned the locus standi of respondent No. 3 to file a habeas corpus petition. It is pointed out that though custody of the child was being asked for but there was not even an indication as to in whose alleged illegal custody the child...
tracking img