A couple in India is celebrating after the Delhi High Court made a landmark ruling allowing them to access their late son’s frozen sperm for surrogacy, giving them the opportunity to have a grandchild.
This decision comes after a four-year legal struggle with a hospital that initially denied their request. Harbir Kaur and Gurvinder Singh lost their 30-year-old son, Preet Inder Singh, to Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in September 2020. Before beginning chemotherapy, doctors advised Preet to preserve his sperm, as the treatment could affect his fertility. Following this guidance, he stored a semen sample in June 2020.
After his passing, the grieving parents sought to retrieve the sample from Ganga Ram Hospital in Delhi, but their request was refused. Determined to honor their son’s legacy, the couple petitioned the Delhi High Court, arguing that they intended to raise a child conceived with Preet’s sperm and had already made family arrangements for the child’s upbringing. Their daughters even assured the court they would take responsibility for the child if something happened to the couple.
Last week, Justice Prathiba Singh ruled in favor of the couple, stating that Indian law does not prohibit posthumous reproduction if the deceased had given consent. She noted that as Preet was unmarried and had no children, his parents became his legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, thus granting them access to the sperm sample.
Now in their 60s, the couple expressed that this ruling gives them a chance to keep their son’s memory alive and continue the family name. Their lawyer, Suruchii Aggarwal, mentioned that while this case is rare, similar instances have occurred in India and abroad, including a 2018 case in Pune where a mother used her deceased son’s sperm for surrogacy. Justice Singh also referenced international examples, such as a 2002 case in Israel where parents were allowed to use their deceased son’s sperm to conceive a grandchild.
In court, Ganga Ram Hospital contended that sperm samples should only be released to a spouse, citing the lack of clear guidelines for transferring them to legal heirs in the absence of a spouse or children. The Indian government also opposed the petition, arguing that surrogacy laws primarily aim to assist infertile couples or women, not those seeking grandchildren, and that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act 2021 prohibits single individuals from having children through surrogacy.
However, Aggarwal argued that Preet had given implied consent for the use of his sperm, as he had filled out a form indicating it was for IVF purposes and included his father’s contact information. Justice Singh agreed, concluding that Preet intended for his sperm to be used for procreation, and as his legal heirs, his parents were entitled to use the sample.
Following the ruling, the family is now exploring surrogacy, with a relative volunteering to serve as the surrogate.
