Legal Review and Analysis of Arun Muthuvel & Others vs Union of India & Others 2025 INSC 1209
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Name: Arun Muthuvel & Others vs. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1209
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Date: October 09, 2025
2. Related Laws and Sections
The judgment primarily interprets and applies provisions from the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 and its corresponding Rules.
Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021:
Section 2(1): Definitions of "altruistic surrogacy," "couple," "embryo," "fertilisation," "gamete," "intending couple," and "surrogacy."
Section 4(iii)(c)(I): The core provision under challenge. It mandates that an intending couple must be "between the age of 23 to 50 years in case of female and between 26 to 55 years in case of male on the day of certification" to be eligible for an eligibility certificate for surrogacy.
Section 53: The "Transitional Provision," which provides a gestation period of ten months from the Act's commencement for the protection of "existing surrogate mothers."Surrogacy (Regulation) Rules, 2022:
Rule 14: Defines the "medical indications necessitating gestational surrogacy."
3. Basic Judgment Details
This judgment is a consolidated ruling on two Writ Petitions (Civil No. 331 of 2024 and 809 of 2024) and one Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 181569 of 2022 in W.P. (C) No. 756 of 2022). The petitioners were three "intending couples" who had initiated medical procedures for surrogacy, including the creation and cryopreservation (freezing) of embryos, before the Surrogacy Act came into force on January 25, 2022. However, after the Act's enforcement, they were denied the necessary eligibility certificates because one or both partners had crossed the upper age limits prescribed under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act. They challenged this denial, leading to the present case.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The core legal issue was whether the upper age restrictions for intending couples under the Surrogacy Act apply retrospectively to disqualify couples who had commenced the surrogacy process before the law was enacted.
A. The Central Issue: Retrospective Application of Age Restrictions
The petitioners argued that they had a vested right to continue the surrogacy process they had lawfully begun under the pre-existing legal regime, where no age limits existed. They contended that applying the new age bar to them was unfairly retrospective. The Union of India defended the age limit, arguing it was based on rational principles like the child's right to adequate guardianship by parents of a "reasonable age" and concerns about gamete quality. They stated that surrogacy is a statutory right, not a fundamental one, and the Act's transitional provision (Section 53) was deliberately limited to protecting only surrogate mothers, not intending couples.
B. The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis
The Court's decision rested on several interconnected pillars of legal reasoning:
i. Surrogacy as a Facet of Reproductive Autonomy under Article 21
The Court firmly anchored the right to surrogacy within the fundamental right to reproductive autonomy, which is a part of the right to privacy and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It cited landmark cases like Suchita Srivastava vs. Chandigarh Admn. (2009), K.S. Puttaswamy (2017), and X vs. State (2023). The judgment held that prior to the Act, the decision of a couple to pursue surrogacy, irrespective of their age, was an exercise of this constitutionally protected decisional autonomy. This right had been freely exercised by the petitioners.
ii. The Principle Against Retrospectivity and Protection of Vested Rights
The Court invoked the cardinal principle of statutory interpretation that every statute is presumed to be prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication made retrospective. Relying on precedents like S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills vs. Union of India (2006) and CIT vs. Vattika Township (P) Ltd. (2015), it held that a law that takes away or impairs vested rights must be presumed not to have retrospective effect.
The Court concluded that the petitioners had a "vested right"—not a mere hope or expectation—by completing the substantial steps of creating and freezing embryos. This right, which flowed from their constitutional autonomy, had crystallized before the Act. Since the Act contained no express language or necessary implication to apply the age limit retrospectively, it could not divest the petitioners of this vested right.
iii. Defining "Commencement of Surrogacy Procedure"
A critical part of the judgment was defining the point at which a surrogacy procedure can be said to have "commenced" for the purpose of claiming protection from new restrictions. The Court adopted the two-stage diagram submitted by the Union of India itself:
Stage A: Includes visiting the clinic, counselling, permissions, extraction of gametes, and creation and freezing of embryos.
Stage B: Involves the surrogate mother—embryo transfer, implantation, pregnancy, and birth.
The Court held that the creation and freezing of embryos marks the culmination of Stage A and is the crystallization of the couple's intention to pursue surrogacy. At this point, all steps to be taken by the intending couple are complete; the subsequent steps only involve the surrogate mother. Therefore, couples who had reached this specific stage before the Act's enforcement were held to have validly "commenced" the procedure.
iv. Rejection of the State's "Compelling Reasons"
The Court was not persuaded by the Union's arguments regarding parenting capability and gamete quality as justifications for retrospective application. It noted that there are no age restrictions for couples wishing to conceive naturally or to adopt children under personal laws. Since the petitioners were, prior to the Act, on the same footing as any other couple exercising reproductive choice, the State's concerns were not "compelling" enough to justify stripping them of a right they had already exercised.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitions and the application. It issued the following definitive directions:
Prospective Application: Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Act, 2021, prescribing age limits, does not have retrospective operation.
Exemption for Petitioners: The petitioners (intending couples 1, 2, and 3) are exempted from complying with the age qualification for obtaining an eligibility certificate.
Criteria for Similarly Situated Couples: Any other similarly situated intending couple will be exempt from the age restriction if they fulfill the following three conditions:
(i) They commenced the surrogacy procedure prior to 25.01.2022.
(ii) They were at the stage of creation and freezing of embryos after the extraction of gametes (i.e., the end of Stage A).
(iii) They were on the threshold of transferring these embryos to a surrogate mother (i.e., the beginning of Stage B).Other Conditions Must Be Met: Such couples must still satisfy all other conditions under the Act and Rules, particularly the medical indications under Rule 14.
Future Redressal: Other similarly placed couples must approach their respective jurisdictional High Courts for redressal instead of the Supreme Court directly.
Concurring Opinion: Justice K.V. Viswanathan, in a separate concurring opinion, reinforced the majority view by employing jurisprudential concepts from Salmond on Jurisprudence. He emphasized that by completing Stage A, the petitioners had moved from a mere "spes" (hope) to a "vested right," which the new statute could not divest. He also drew analogies from precedents like Anushka Rengunthwar vs. Union of India (2023) to support the conclusion that the law should not be applied retroactively to destroy rights accrued under a previous legal regime.
6. Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment
1. According to the Supreme Court in Arun Muthuvel vs. UOI (2025), the creation and freezing of embryos in the surrogacy process signifies?
(a) The beginning of the medical relationship between the doctor and the patient.
(b) The crystallization of the intending couple's intention to pursue surrogacy, completing all steps required from them.
(c) The point at which the surrogate mother's legal responsibilities begin.
(d) The stage where the Act's age restrictions become mandatory, regardless of when the process started.
(b) The crystallization of the intending couple's intention to pursue surrogacy, completing all steps required from them.
2. The Supreme Court held that the age restrictions under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy Act, 2021, cannot be applied retrospectively primarily because?
(a) The restrictions were based on unscientific reasoning.
(b) The Parliament did not have the legislative competence to enact such a law.
(c) The intending couples had a vested right, flowing from their reproductive autonomy under Article 21, which was exercised before the Act came into force.
(d) The transitional provision under Section 53 explicitly protected all intending couples.
(c) The intending couples had a vested right, flowing from their reproductive autonomy under Article 21, which was exercised before the Act came into force.
Blog Posts
