INTRODUCTION
India, as a nation, is distinguished by its remarkable commitment towards the protection and promotion of individual rights, which is also enshrined in the Indian Constitution that not only guarantees a spectrum of rights and freedoms, but also has shaped its legal doctrine, thereby positively affirming the lives of millions. At the heart of these rights lies Article 211, that guaranteed right to life and personal liberty. Initially, this right protected individuals only against arbitrary and unauthorised deprivation of life. However, over the course of several landmark judicial precedents, the scope of Article 21 has been broadened to encompass wide aspects of rights, such as right to privacy, education, livelihood, etc, all of which are fundamental to live a dignified life.
One of the most significant developments is seen in the expansion of women’s autonomy in making decisions according to her personal choices, relating to contraception, abortion, healthcare, childbearing matters, etc. All these rights cumulatively constitute the essence of Reproductive Rights of women which aims to safeguard women’s freedom over their own bodies and invariably their lives too.
Reproductive Rights encompass a composite set of allied and inter-linked civil and human rights. On a general note, they refer to all those aspects connected with the ability of women to control matters concerning conception, fertility, childbearing, contraceptive, legal and safe abortion rights, maternal health rights, and rights against coerced sterilization and contraception2. Further, nearly all major international conventions and organs such as WHO, United Nations, ICPD, CEDAW, etc, have a shared consensus about the definition and scope of Reproductive Rights, wherein, they are grounded to focus on women’s development and autonomy, and re-affirm the principles of dignity, equality, and bodily integrity. They recognise it as the fundamental right of women to freely decide the number, spacing, and timing of their children, to have access to the information and means to do so, and to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health, all while making decisions free from discrimination, coercion, and violence.
EVOLUTION OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
A. Post-Independence Era
The concept of reproductive rights emerged in international discussions in 1968 with the Proclamation of Teheran, which affirmed that “parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children.” This principle was later reinforced by the UN General Assembly through the 1974 Declaration on Social Progress and Development3. In India, the evolution of reproductive rights over the past two decades reflects a complex journey marked by persistent patriarchal barriers, judicial interventions, legislative amendments, and a slow yet visible transformation in societal attitudes4.
In the years immediately following independence, reproductive rights as a concept did not have any distinct recognition in India. Every policy regarding women’s health was majorly framed as a tool for population control, as high fertility and uncontrolled birth rates were seen as an impediment to India’s development. This whole approach deeply reflected the society’s patriarchal norms, where women were primarily viewed in the lens of motherhood and their health was reduced as a means to serve reproduction.
Although reproductive rights were not explicitly recognized per se, it was through a series of legislative attempts and judicial pronouncements that expanded these rights to include reproductive autonomy, bodily integrity, privacy, and dignity, amongst several others. These harsh realities along with the societal standards ultimately laid the foundation for the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 19715 (hereinafter referred to as the MTP Act of 1971).
B. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971
Prior to this statute, termination of pregnancy or abortion was largely regulated by Section 312 of the IPC6, which severely criminalized causing miscarriage except when there is a dire need to save the mother’s life. Therefore, the MTP Act of 1971 which was drafted in tune with the UK’s Abortion Act of 1967, marked a significant shift in India’s approach to reproductive healthcare and legal regulation, where the legislative intent behind passing of this Law was not merely to reduce maternal mortality and morbidity, but also to provide a qualified ‘right to abortion’ and the legalize the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners (hereinafter referred to as RMP), in several circumstances.
Section 3 of this Act laid down specific grounds under which abortions or medical termination of pregnancy can be done legally by RMP’s; where:
• The gestational period has not crossed twelve weeks (with the consent of one RMP), or between twelve to twenty weeks (with the consent of two RMPs),
• There is a grave risk or injury to the life of the mother, or to the physical or mental health of the child,
• Pregnancy has occurred due to rape or sexual assault, or due to contraceptive failures
A key feature of the Act is that the consent for abortion solely rests on the woman and does not require approval from spouses or family members. Further, this Act has an overriding effect on Section 3127 of the IPC or the present-day Section 88 of the BNS8. Accordingly, where the requirements u/Section 3 are satisfied, no legal liability or penalty is imposed up on the RMPs who perform abortions legally and in good faith.
C. Inadequacies in the law
The MTP Act of 1971 affirmed certain degree of reproductive rights to women, and was a pioneering step in legalizing abortion in India. However, it was far from comprehensive. To terminate pregnancy, a woman had to fall withing the narrow conditions of Section 3 and it refrained from recognizing unwillingness to continue a pregnancy as a sole ground for terminating it, and instead created a presumption that pregnancy resulting from contraceptive failure causes grave mental injury to the woman. It is ultimately is upon the RMP to determine whether it causes grave mental injury to the woman and subsequently to terminate it9, leaving them at the mercy of practitioners’ discretion.
Another shortcoming was the restrictive gestational period, where termination beyond twenty weeks was largely prohibited, even in cases of serious fetal abnormalities or late detection of complications. Therefore, in a deeper sense, the Act gave minimal consideration for women to realise her bodily autonomy to the fullest capacity.
D. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2021
While these shortcomings were highlighted, contemporarily, the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate gained prominence, where the state leaned towards pro-life and saving the child from the stage of the fetus, while the feminist women’s group argued for a pro-choice framework, giving primacy to women’s rights and interests. All these factors, along with the need to address the rigidities and ambiguities of the 1971 Act eventually led to its amendment, which is now termed as the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act of 202110 (hereinafter referred as the MTP Act of 2021).
Representing a progressive shift in the India’s journey towards gender equality, the MTP Act of 2021 recognises that pregnancies are detected late and fetal abnormalities more often than not are only found after 20 weeks and the gestational limits u/Section 311 of the 2021 Act are extended for a flexible application. Currently, a single RMP may approve termination of pregnancy up to 20 weeks, whereas for termination between 20 to 24 weeks, the medical opinion and approval of two RMPs is required. Such authorization is limited to conditions highlighted under the section, including:
• Cases of rape,
• Incest
• Minor pregnancy
• Change in marital status
• Contraceptive failures
• Fetal abnormalities or risk of physical or mental disabilities.
An important advancement is that the amended Act u/Section 3(2B) and (2C) legalises termination of pregnancies beyond 24 weeks only in the case of severe fetal abnormalities and with the approval from a medical board established by the State. The Act by allowing certified private hospitals to perform abortions legally, has improved the accessibility to women and ensures timely and safe abortion care for women who might otherwise face medical or logistical barriers.
Perhaps, the most reformative step by the law-makers is the expansion of the term ‘any married woman or her husband” in the MTP Act of 1971 with “any woman or her partner in the MTP Act of 2021, marking towards a positive shift not only in the law, but also in the long-standing patriarchal norms.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
The evolution of reproductive rights, along with the statutory reforms, is further profoundly enriched by the Indian Judiciary’s proactive role and contribution. Through a series of landmark precedents, the courts have aided towards a comprehensive right-based action, thereby establishing and expanding the landscape of women’s reproductive health rights in India.
The case of Nand Kishore Sharma v. UOI12 marked one of the earliest judicial interventions, where the petitioners challenged the validity of 3(2)(a), (b) and Explanation I and II of Section 3 of the MTP Act of 1971 as violative of Article 21. The court however, upheld these provisions by establishing that the Act’s primary objective is to safeguard women’s life and health.
Perhaps the most landmark pronouncement regarding reproductive rights was in the case of Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration13, where the SC duly recognized that a woman’s freedom to make decisions regarding her reproductive health and allied matters including the decision to procreate or abstain from procreating is an integral facet of personal liberty u/Article 21 and it culminates to constitute her right to dignity and bodily autonomy. While the ruling affirmed these positive protections to women, it ultimately applied the doctrine of ‘Parens Patriae’ and held that the petitioner, a mentally retarded prisoner who wanted to terminate her pregnancy at 19 weeks was not allowed to do so owing to various reasons that even today casts a doubt on the actual realization of the positive affirmations laid down by the court in the very same case.
The Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital14 case marked an important shift from the Suchitra Srivastava case to focus more on the state’s duty in providing and safeguarding women’s maternal health and rights. The court while invoking international human rights obligations under conventions such as CEDAW, held that a person acquires human rights only at birth and an unborn fetus is not entitled to such rights. Pregnancy has profound effects on a woman’s health, mental well-being and life and thus, and thus the decision to continue or terminate the pregnancy rests solely with her15. Thus, the court acknowledged that the systemic state’s failure must not undermine the rights to basic healthcare and reproductive health and held that burden of proving eligibility to access maternal healthcare benefits should not rest on any indigent.
Along the same lines, the SC in CEHAT v. UOI16, underscored the importance of judicial activism in enforcing allied reproductive rights by addressing the ineffective implementation of the Pre-Conception and Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act17 and directed the authorities to prevent sex-selective abortions as they further perpetuate gender discrimination and female foeticide.
The SC further deliberated upon these issues in the most landmark case of X v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi18, where the factual setting was such that the petitioner, an unmarried 22-week pregnant woman sought to terminate her pregnancy. The SC moved from a rigid approach and progressively interpreted that abortions beyond 24 weeks can be allowed owing to any change in material circumstances as a legitimate ground. The court also presided that rape includes marital rape and that the reproductive decisional autonomy is a constitutional right not just for married women but also for unmarried women, which ought to be enjoyed irrespective of marital status.
Another significant judgement was rendered in the case of Indu Devi v. State of Bihar19, where the SC highlighted the dreadful consequences of administrative negligence in providing healthcare facilities to vulnerable women. The petitioner, a rape survivor, was grossly denied access to termination of her pregnancy despite clear medical indications that continuing with the pregnancy would expose the mother and the child to grave risks. The SC condemned the negligence that resulted in the violation of her right to live with dignity and access to basic reproductive healthcare, while directing the state authorities to ensure institutional compliances with the provisions of the MTP Act of 2021 and to compensate for the trauma and health deterioration caused to the women, especially one who had no other means to access such reproductive healthcare facilities but to rely on the state; thereby reinforcing the positive obligations casted up on the state to provide a safe, equal and dignified state of being towards the people.
ALLIED RIGHTS
As the Statutory reforms and Judicial pro-activeness shaped the status quo of reproductive rights in India, they have also led to the seamless expansion of several allied rights which have become indispensable components to fully realise such rights to its fullest. Courts have increasingly recognized that reproductive health cannot be secluded or viewed in isolation as they form a part of a larger right-based autonomy of women that includes not only the right to reproduce, but also the manner, timing and its several related aspects.
A. Assisted Reproductive Technology
Assisted Reproductive Technology (hereinafter referred to as ART) has widely been recognized as an allied right within the larger framework of reproductive rights, where modern technological innovations and advanced bio-medical techniques provide alternative avenues to individuals and couples to enjoy parenthood when natural conception is otherwise not possible. The birth of a girl child in Kolkata in 1978 as India’s first test-tube baby marked the beginning of the journey with ART20. Today, pregnancy through techniques such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), intrauterine insemination (IUI), amongst several others, has led to the rapid growth of the assisted reproduction industry. This poses both a progressive milestone as well as concerns surrounding ethical, social, and legal implications, making regulatory oversight essential.
One of India’s first national regulatory framework for ART was developed and issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and sought to establish a uniform standard for regulation and supervision. Additionally, the Ministry of Home Affairs also issues timely directives for monitoring such practices in both private and public hospitals. Over time, these guidelines and mere directives proved to be insufficient as executive action became fragmented and unequal across regions leading to disparities among states with respect to regulating ART clinics and the whole process. This exposed the challenges in curbing the commercialization, exploitation of women, consent, parentage, and the rights of children born through ART. These persisted concerns, aggravated by the growing international necessity to provide access to safe and accessible reproductive and allied health care facilities, paved way for the enactment of a comprehensive legislation named as Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 202121 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The Act through sub-section 1 of section 2 defines Assisted Reproductive Techniques as “any medical technique or procedure aimed at achieving pregnancy through manipulating sperms or eggs outside of the human body and placing the resulting gamete or embryo inside the woman’s reproductive system.22 The Act was primarily enacted to establish, regulate and monitor ART clinics, banks, hospitals, associated medical professionals along with the procedures and techniques. It aims to safeguard patients and couples against exploitation, misinformation and unethical practices which might endanger their lives. The Act seeks to achieve this by mandating every ART clinic to enlist and register itself with the National Registry of Banks and Clinics of India which serves as a centralized database, with the state governments overseeing the registration process.
The Act, through Sections 21 to 31, lists the duties of every registered clinic to ensure that only eligible commissioning couples or gamete donors who meet the required qualifications and necessary medical screenings undergo ART procedures. Clinics are also required to provide counselling services and disclose all important and relevant details of the procedure such as the risks, success rates, costs, etc which might have an influence on the couples’ decision-making ability. The details of such commissioning couples are to be kept confidential, except otherwise required to be disclosed by court orders. Perhaps the most important feature of the Act is that it legally mandates that all children born through ART procedures are to be recognized as the biological children of the commissioning couple.
The Act also prescribes penalties for several categorized offences. Any clinic advertising or promoting sex-selective practices may face imprisonment ranging from five to 10 years and fine of rupees ten to twenty-five lakhs. Further, the Act criminalizes abandoning and exploiting children born through any of the ART methods, where first-time offenders face fines of ₹5–10 lakhs, while repeated violations may lead to imprisonment of three to eight years and fines up to ₹20 lakhs.
B. Challenges in the ART Act 2021
Although the ART Regulations Act brought legislative oversight over the ART sector in India, it is regrettably accompanied by significant shortcomings and loopholes in terms of conceptual clarity and constitutional compatibility. The primary challenge is with the rigid application of the Act, where it defines a commissioning couple exclusively as married heterosexual couple who have proof of infertility. This definition significantly narrows down the applicability of the Act and the understanding of a family in modern day time, by excluding single men, live-in couples, individuals from the LGBTQ+ community, widow or widowers, despite having the eligibility of raising a child. Further, the mandate up on the couples to produce the proof of infertility acts as another obstacle where they are forced to resort to the alternative reproductive method only when they naturally cannot conceive, thereby restricting their choice of making decisions regarding the preferred means of pregnancy and parenthood. This acts as a direct contravention with the K.S Puttaswamy23 judgement, which upheld that privacy is a cornerstone feature of Article 21, without which, the wholesome enjoyment of any other right is impossible.
C. Surrogacy
One of the most prominent methods of ART is Surrogacy. Black’s Law Dictionary defines it as the procedure of bearing and delivering a child for someone else24, and this is also reflected and majorly governed by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 202125 (hereinafter referred to as the SRA 2021). It generally refers to the arrangement where a woman agrees to carry the full term of pregnancy of a child that is unrelated to her, and hands over the child to the intended or commissioning parent. Surrogacy has been identified as a societal stigma and only in the last two decades has the concept attained national and international discourse. In India, surrogacy is becoming an increasingly accepted practice amongst many couples, primarily by the economically privileged sectors, who can bear its significant financial cost.
The India Council of Medical Research (ICMR) along with the SRA 2021 classifies surrogacy on the basis of genetic relation and financial arrangement. In all such methods, there is termination of the surrogate’s parental rights and she agrees to relinquish the child and all related rights to the intending parents.
Under them, it is further classified into:
• Traditional Surrogacy: is also termed as the straight method, where the surrogate mother uses her eggs and the semen of the intending father to give birth to the child, thereby creating a genetic link to the child.
• Gestational surrogacy: is also termed as host method, where the child born is not related to the surrogate mother as the embryo transfer occurs into the surrogate mother’s body from the intending parent’s egg and sperm, resulting in no genetic link between the surrogate and the child.
• Altruistic Surrogacy: is the method where there is no formal contract of payment or financial benefits to the surrogate mother other than the required medical expenses and reimbursement. In India, only Altruistic Surrogacy is permitted.
• Commercial Surrogacy: in contrast, is the method that involved payment of pre-decided amount of money, that is usually paid as an income to the surrogate mother for offering to carry the child, thereby making it a business-like transaction between strangers.
Prior to the enactment of the SRA 2021, surrogacy practices were largely unregulated, turning cities like Anand in Gujarat into a global surrogacy hub by attracting international couples to find suitable surrogates here. This gave rise to several challenges including exploitation of young women, child abandonment as seen in the case of Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality26, which changed the entire landscape surrogacy rules. Therefore, with the enactment of the SRA 2021, commercial surrogacy u/Sec 3827 and any related practice such as advertising, use of brokers, exploitation of surrogate mothers or children is strictly prohibited, allowing only for altruistic and gestational surrogacy.
1. Legal and Ethical Issues in the Surrogacy Framework
The SRA 2021 does introduce a framework that prioritizes the protection of women by removing all sorts of commercial-natured agreements and practices. However, the Act in itself has several inherent drawbacks that fuels debates on whether it adequately balances the rights and interests or further perpetuates inequality and exploitation. The act limits the choice to opt for surrogacy only to married heterosexual couples who must have their eligibility certificate of proven infertility issued by a competent government authority and it also makes no room for the inclusion for unmarried individuals, homosexual couples, live-in-couples to opt for surrogacy, thereby failing to acknowledge the evolving social structure and realities of the nation. Therefore, the act falls short in satisfying the constitutional mandate of Art. 1428 of the Indian Constitution as there is no reasonable nexus or any legislative rationale to support the intelligible differentia. This legislative stance also contradicts the established judicial precedents such as Navtej Singh Johar v. UOI29 and Khushboo v. Kanniammal30 which recognized and affirmed dignity and equality to same-sex couples and live-in relationship couples, by reversing their impact and enforcing a narrow application.
Additionally, the dichotomy between commercial and altruistic surrogacy overlooks the consequential deeper problems. The ban on commercial surrogacy has only fostered unregulated and illegal black markets where women face greater exploitation and no legal protection. Therefore, a complete prohibition of commercial surrogacy is not the end solution and the focus must shift towards a stronger protection mechanism regardless of the kind of surrogacy.
2. Cross-Border Surrogacy
Another major issue with respect to surrogacy is Cross-Border Surrogacy (hereinafter referred to as CBS). It refers to the practice where the intending parents enter into surrogacy agreements with the surrogate mothers who are usually from different jurisdictions, often by travelling to another country which provides for a flexible, affordable and legal platform for surrogacy. Given the fact that surrogacy laws are not uniform across nations, these transnational agreements cause several ethical and legal concerns such as citizenship of children born, enforceability of surrogacy contracts, etc, all of which are critical in determining the true reproductive autonomy.
Ethically analysing, CBS severely exploits surrogate mothers who are usually from the vulnerable and marginalised groups as their disadvantaged position makes them easily susceptible to coercion and unfair treatment. The Surrogates may carry pregnancy just for monetary benefits, risking their life and health to complications, thereby raising critical concerns of fairness and consent. Legally, the rights and welfare of the children born out of such pregnancies will be of pressing concern as there would be no clarity regarding their citizenship and status, often rendering them stateless or in legal limbo.
Addressing these concerns require harmonization in the international framework to firstly recognize surrogacy and attribute the rights, liabilities and regulations. Without any cohesive regulatory framework, the complexities will inherently continue to exist, thereby undermining the reproductive autonomy of women.
COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: UNITED STATES
Having analysed the Indian trajectory in the realm of reproductive rights, it is pertinent to have a comparative study with that of the USA, as reproductive rights and in particular the access to abortion has seen a dynamic evolution from a liberal and constitutionally protected state of being towards a highly-restrictive regime today that can be analysed through a series of judicial pronouncements. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut31 established the right to privacy as fundamental, extending to contraceptive use. The turning point in the recognition of women’s rights not just in the USA but also globally, was through the case of Roe v. Wade32 which legalized abortions and constitutionally protected it as a right to privacy and bodily autonomy under the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment. This case also created a trimester framework wherein in the first trimester the state had no right to restrict abortion and in the subsequent trimesters, states could impose restrictions to protect the mother’s life. This rigid trimester application was relaxed in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey33 case, thereby collectively reflecting US’s stand towards an affirmative and liberal approach and also marking a major step towards enabling a safer and inclusive legal framework for women.
However, this liberal landscape saw a radical shift when Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization34 overturned the ruling of Roe by criminalizing abortion and left it to the state’s discretion whether or not to legalize it. Therefore, more than 12 US States have a blanket ban on abortions, thereby severely curtailing women’s reproductive choice and autonomy. This negatively impacts women as they now have to travel across borders, incur huge expenses and emotional burden to terminate their pregnancy, and the law shows no leniency even for rape victims or when the mother or the child’s life is at risk.
The US’s legal landscape presents a sharp contrast to that of India’s where India being a developing country has advanced towards providing primacy to women, their health and rights by recognizing not just reproductive rights, but also several allied rights to ensure their complete autonomy in the society. On the other hand, US being a well-advanced nation regressed from its earlier liberal pathway, highlighting the tension between pro-life and pro-choice activism and undue state intervention over personal rights.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND WAY FORWARD
The analysis of the legal and social reforms for women in India indicates that the country is progressing towards the improvement of women’s rights, particularly regarding their access to health care, autonomy and personal rights. These reforms are further reflected in the statutory enactments as well as in the societal mindset, thereby translating the legal ambitions into tangible achievements. However, despite these advancements, women continue to face formidable social and cultural barriers to fully enjoy and exercise their reproductive autonomy. A plethora of hurdles such as educational backwardness, social taboos and stigmas, limited access to healthcare facilities, urban-rural division and the deep-rooted patriarchal structure limits their decision-making powers and undermines the very purpose of the reforms and enactments undertaken.
By far the most challenging barrier is the ineffective implementation of these laws which had led to several women to opt for unsafe and illegal methods of abortions and surrogacies. With this background, it could be inferred that the policies, reforms and even the judicial principles that progressed on paper, fell short in reforming the unchanged realities of many women as they are still shaped by several infrastructural barriers.
Therefore, to bridge the gap and embody the values and rights enshrined in the constitution for women, the state must introduce comprehensive, effective and long-term mechanisms that not only promises tangible improvement, but also leaves little to no room for loopholes. The state along with other organizations can increase public awareness through sex education and community engagements to de-stigmatize the notion on women’s healthcare. Further the policymakers must begin to address the rigidity of caste and patriarchal oppression through targeted interventions to streamline the access of safe abortions and surrogacy services, ensure non-discriminatory treatment and build a transparent, safe and accountable mechanism to promote the over- all welfare and growth of women across India. Only such multi-layered approaches can help India translate the constitutional promise of equality, dignity and autonomy to all women into a lived reality.
*****
Footnotes
1. INDIA CONST. art. 21.
2. Muskan Rafiq, Dr. Harshita Thalwal, Historical evaluation of reproductive rights: analysis of the timeline of women’s reproductive rights from the suffrage movement to modern day legislation, 5, IJRPR, 1033, 1033-1034 (2024).
3. Priya Gautam, Navigating the Legal Landscape: Challenges and Frameworks for Women’s Reproductive Rights in India, 3, IJLSSS, 563, 565 (2025).
4. Saheli Women’s Resource Centre, https://sites.google.com/site/saheliorgsite/health/reproductive-rights-in-the-indian-context, (last visited Dec 5, 2025).
5. Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, No. 34, Acts of Parliament, 1971 (India).
6. Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.312, No. 45 of 1860 (repealed).
7. Supra note 6, at 3.
8. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023, S. 88, No.46, Acts of Parliament,2023 (India).
9. S. N. Pai, Krithi S. Chandra, Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of India: Treading the Path between Practical and Ethical Reproductive Justice, 48(4), Indian J. Cmty. Med, 510, 511 (2023).
10. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, No. 8, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
11. Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Act, 2021, S. 3, No. 8, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
12. Nand Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2006 Raj 166.
13. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, AIR 2010 SC 235.
14. Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital, MANU/DE/1268/2010.
15. Mahnaz Ajaz, Dr. Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, Reproductive Rights in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of Laws and Policies, 6, IJLSI, 379, 385 (2024).
16. Centre For Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2007.
17. Pre-Conception and Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, No. 57, Acts of Parliament, 1994 (India).
18. X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2022 SC 4917.
19. Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, AIR 2017 SC 3908.
20. Adithya Bharadwaj, The Indian IVF saga: a contested history, 2, Reprod Biomed Soc Online, 54, 55 (2016).
21. Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 42. Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
22. Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, S. 2, No. 42. Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
23. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India AIR 2017 SC 416.
24. Surrogacy, Black’s Law Dictionary, (9th ed. 2009).
25. Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
26. Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality, AIR 2010 Guj 21.
27. Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, S. 38, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 2021 (India).
28. INDIA CONST. art. 14.
29. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India Ministry, AIR 2018 SC 4321.
30. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, AIR 2010 SC 3196.
31. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
32. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
33. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
34. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).