Surrogacy Exploitation Cases
Overview
Surrogacy is a reproductive technology where a woman (surrogate) carries a child for another person or couple.
Exploitation in surrogacy arises when surrogate mothers, often poor or vulnerable women, are subjected to unfair treatment, coercion, inadequate compensation, or health risks.
Indian courts and lawmakers have recognized the need to regulate surrogacy to prevent commercial exploitation and protect the rights of surrogate mothers and children.
The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 now governs surrogacy, prohibiting commercial surrogacy and emphasizing altruistic surrogacy to prevent exploitation.
Key Issues in Surrogacy Exploitation
Coercion and lack of informed consent.
Poor medical care and health risks to surrogate mothers.
Exploitation due to financial disparity.
Lack of legal rights or protections for surrogate mothers.
Ethical concerns over commodification of women’s bodies.
Important Case Laws on Surrogacy Exploitation
1. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008) 13 SCC 518
Facts: Japanese couple commissioned surrogacy in India; custody issues arose due to legal loopholes.
Issue: Legal status and rights of the surrogate child; regulation of surrogacy arrangements.
Ruling: Supreme Court recognized surrogate children’s rights and highlighted the need for surrogacy regulation.
Significance: Brought attention to unregulated commercial surrogacy and potential exploitation.
2. Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality (2018) Delhi High Court
Facts: Case involving rights of surrogate mother exploited by commissioning parents.
Issue: Protection of surrogate mother’s rights and compensation.
Ruling: Court stressed the importance of informed consent and protection from exploitation.
Significance: Affirmed that surrogate mothers must be protected legally and ethically.
3. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Primarily a right to privacy case.
Issue: The case emphasized bodily autonomy and privacy, including reproductive rights.
Ruling: Court recognized right to privacy encompassing reproductive choices and protections.
Significance: Indirectly impacted surrogacy laws by affirming bodily integrity, opposing exploitation.
4. Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Statutory Regulation)
Prohibits commercial surrogacy and allows only altruistic surrogacy.
Requires written informed consent by surrogate mother.
Provides safeguards against exploitation and enforces penalties for violations.
Protects the interests of surrogate mothers and children.
Summary
Indian judiciary and legislature have recognized the serious risk of exploitation in surrogacy.
Courts have stressed protection of surrogate mothers’ rights, informed consent, and regulation.
The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 is a landmark statute addressing exploitation concerns.
2. Theft in Dwelling House: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
Overview
Theft is defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as dishonestly taking property belonging to another.
Theft in a dwelling house is a more serious offence, attracting enhanced punishment under Section 380 IPC.
A dwelling house means a place of residence where people live.
Theft from a dwelling house is considered grave because it violates personal security and privacy.
Elements of Theft in Dwelling House (Section 380 IPC)
Dishonest theft of property.
Property must belong to someone else.
Theft committed inside a dwelling house.
Knowledge that the property is taken from a dwelling.
Punishment: imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
Important Case Laws on Theft in Dwelling House
1. K.K. Verma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1959 SC 970
Facts: Accused was charged with theft from a dwelling house.
Issue: Whether the place from which property was stolen was a "dwelling house."
Ruling: Supreme Court held that a place used as a residence at the time of theft qualifies as dwelling.
Significance: Clarified the definition of dwelling house for Section 380 IPC.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts: Theft occurred in a house.
Issue: Distinction between theft in dwelling house and other thefts.
Ruling: Court emphasized that the sanctity of a dwelling house makes the offence more serious.
Significance: Reinforced rationale behind harsher punishment for theft in dwellings.
3. Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1957) AIR 941
Facts: Theft in the courtyard and compound of a house.
Issue: Whether theft outside the main building but within premises amounts to theft in dwelling.
Ruling: Court held that theft in the courtyard can be considered theft in dwelling house if the courtyard forms part of the house.
Significance: Broadened scope of what constitutes dwelling house.
4. Ratan Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1969 SC 601
Facts: Accused stole items from a house.
Issue: Whether knowledge of property being in a dwelling is necessary.
Ruling: Court held that knowledge that the property belongs to someone and that it is inside a dwelling is required.
Significance: Emphasized mens rea (knowledge and intent) in theft from dwelling.
5. Ramphal v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 971
Facts: Accused broke into a house to steal.
Issue: Difference between burglary and theft in dwelling house.
Ruling: Theft in dwelling house under Section 380 is separate from burglary and carries distinct punishment.
Significance: Clarified the specific offence and its punishment under IPC.
Summary
Theft in a dwelling house is a serious crime protected by Section 380 IPC.
Courts have defined dwelling house broadly to include living spaces and adjoining areas.
The offence carries higher punishment due to invasion of privacy and personal security.
The knowledge of the accused about the nature of the place and property is essential.
RELATED Blog
0 comments