Delhi HC Allows Deceased Man's Frozen Sperm To Be Used For 'Family Lineage'

A four-year legal battle reached a positive conclusion as the Delhi High Court allowed the parents of a deceased man to access his frozen sperm for 'posthumous reproduction'. Following a complex case, Justice Pratibha M. Singh on October 4 ruled in favour of petitioners Gurvinder Singh and Harbir Kaur, allowing them to retrieve their son Preet Inder Singh's cryopreserved semen in hopes of having a grandchild. The decision came despite the absence of written consent from Preet, who died of cancer in 2020 at the age of 30.

Delhi HC Allows Access To Deceased Man's Frozen Sperm: Background Of Case

Gurvinder Singh and Harbir Kaur sought to access Preet's semen sample which has been stored in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital since June 2020, four months before he started chemotherapy for non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The respondents, including the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, argued that Gurvinder and Harbir did not qualify as “intending parents” under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Act or the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act (SRA).

However, the petitioners relied on their fundamental right to reproductive choice under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. They argued that although their son had not provided written consent, his intention to preserve his semen for future procreation was clear. They stated that the preserved semen should be treated as an extension of their son's reproductive autonomy and that they, as legal heirs, had the right to use it to continue their family legacy.

Justice Pratibha Singh acknowledged the legal, ethical, and moral complexities of the case. On October 4, the Delhi HC observed, “The death of an individual does not negate their right to reproductive autonomy. The petitioners, as legal heirs, seek to fulfil the last remaining wish of their deceased son – to continue his lineage. This right, which flows from Article 21, must be preserved in the absence of explicit prohibition.” 

According to a report in Live Law, Justice Singh added that ART and Surrogacy laws must evolve with the changing societal needs and that in the absence of clear statutory prohibition, reproductive rights must take precedence. "This right should not be stultified due to the lack of explicit consent, especially when the deceased’s intention to preserve his reproductive material was clear," she noted.