REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SURROGACY (REGULATION) ACT, 2021

According to the Indian constitution, reproductive rights are essential to personal liberty, privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Concerns about exploitation, informed consent, bodily autonomy, child welfare, and the commercialization of reproductive labor have all been raised by the rise of assisted reproductive technologies, especially surrogacy. The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which substituted a rigorously controlled altruistic model for India's formerly unregulated commercial surrogacy regime, is examined critically in this article. Through limitations on commercial surrogacy, obligatory regulatory processes, eligibility standards, insurance coverage, informed consent, and protections against exploitation, the Act aims to protect surrogate mothers, intending parents, and children. However, under Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution, its strict qualifying requirements pose serious problems, especially the exclusion of unmarried individuals, same-sex couples, single men, live-in partners, and several other groups of intended parents. The analysis takes into account the evolution of reproductive autonomy under the constitution through rulings like Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, X v. Principal Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, and Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal. It contends that limitations on surrogacy access must uphold the values of proportionality, substantive equality, dignity, privacy, and reproductive autonomy, even when stopping exploitation is a justifiable governmental goal. Further evidence that strict regulation does not necessarily need the exclusion of entire groups of intending parents comes from a comparative analysis of international approaches. In order to properly reconcile reproductive liberty with the safety of surrogate mothers and children, future changes should embrace a more inclusive, rights-based approach, according to the article's conclusion.