Sri Nandhini Devi and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026

The petitioners were a married couple who solemnized their marriage in 2005 and were blessed with a son.

Their son unfortunately died due to cardiac arrest in 2024, leaving the couple without a child.

The wife suffered from absence of uterus, making it medically impossible for her to conceive or carry a pregnancy.

The couple decided to have a child through surrogacy in accordance with the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

After scrutiny of their medical records and statutory eligibility, the Appropriate Authority issued an Eligibility Certificate to the intending couple.

A close relative voluntarily agreed to become the surrogate mother and was also granted the requisite Eligibility Certificate by the competent authority.

Thereafter, the intending couple and the surrogate mother jointly approached the Magistrate under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) seeking a parentage and custody order.

The Magistrate dismissed the application on two grounds: (i) alleged age ineligibility of the intending mother, and (ii) non-examination of the surrogate mother's husband.

Challenging the Magistrate's order as contrary to the statutory scheme of the Surrogacy Act, the petitioners filed the present Criminal Revision Petition before the Madras High Court.

The Madras High Court held that the Magistrate exceeded the jurisdiction conferred under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

The Court clarified that the Magistrate's role is confined to ensuring voluntariness, statutory compliance, welfare of the child, and legal certainty regarding parentage and custody.

It held that the Magistrate cannot function as an appellate authority over the findings recorded by the District Medical Board, Appropriate Authority, Insurance Authority, or Registered ART/Surrogacy Clinics.

The Court observed that reassessment of an Eligibility Certificate is permissible only where there exists fraud, patent illegality, or lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record.

Interpreting the statutory age requirement liberally, the Court held that the prescribed upper age limit of 50 years includes the period until the intending woman completes 51 years of age.

The Court ruled that the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 does not mandate examination of the surrogate mother's husband, and therefore the Magistrate's insistence on such examination was legally unsustainable.

The Court emphasized that beneficial legislation should not be interpreted through a hyper-technical approach that defeats the legislative purpose.

The Court framed comprehensive judicial guidelines to ensure uniformity in dealing with applications under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) across Magistrate Courts.

Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

The judgment significantly clarifies the limited scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 4(iii)(a)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The High Court held that the Magistrate performs a supervisory function rather than an adjudicatory or appellate role. This interpretation preserves the legislative framework by ensuring that specialized statutory authorities retain primary responsibility for determining medical eligibility and statutory compliance.

The Court reinforced the doctrine of institutional competence by recognizing that bodies such as the District Medical Board, Appropriate Authority, and Registered ART/Surrogacy Clinics possess the technical expertise entrusted by Parliament. Judicial interference with their findings is permissible only in exceptional cases involving fraud, patent illegality, or lack of jurisdiction, thereby respecting the statutory allocation of powers.

By interpreting the age requirement in a purposive and liberal manner, the Court reaffirmed that beneficial legislation must be construed to advance its underlying objective rather than frustrate it through rigid or hyper-technical interpretations. Holding that eligibility continues until the intending woman actually completes 51 years of age ensures that deserving applicants are not denied the benefits of the legislation on technical grounds.

The judgment also strengthens the principle that courts cannot introduce additional statutory conditions through judicial interpretation. By rejecting the Magistrate's insistence on examining the surrogate mother's husband, the Court held that judicial authorities must apply the law as enacted and refrain from adding procedural requirements that the legislature has consciously omitted.

An important contribution of the decision is the issuance of comprehensive judicial guidelines governing applications for parentage and custody under the Surrogacy Act. These guidelines promote uniformity, consistency, and predictability in judicial practice while reducing unnecessary delays and hardships faced by intending couples, surrogate mothers, and children born through surrogacy.

The judgment places significant emphasis on the welfare of the child, which remains the central consideration in surrogacy proceedings. By facilitating timely parentage and custody orders, the Court protects the legal identity, family status, and future rights of children born through lawful surrogacy.

From a broader legal perspective, the decision reinforces the principles of judicial restraint, administrative deference, and purposive statutory interpretation. It serves as an important precedent for subordinate courts by clearly delineating the respective functions of Magistrates, Medical Boards, and Appropriate Authorities, thereby ensuring effective implementation of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.