The Union Government informed the Kerala High Court that a trans man cannot claim access to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, as transgender individuals fall outside the categories permitted by the statute. The submission came in response to a writ petition filed by a 28-year-old trans man seeking permission to cryopreserve his eggs before undergoing gender-affirming surgery. The Centre maintained that the statutory design itself bars such relief.
The petitioner, assigned female at birth and now identifying as male, approached the High Court seeking approval to preserve his oocytes prior to further gender-affirming procedures. In its counter affidavit, the Union Government asserted that the ART Act restricts access to ART services exclusively to a “commissioning couple”, defined strictly as a married man and woman, or to a single woman. By statutory mandate, single men and transgender persons are not eligible for ART procedures, including oocyte cryopreservation.
The Centre highlighted that Parliament had consciously adopted this framework after consultations with experts and scrutiny by Parliamentary Committees. Demands for inclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons, live-in partners, and other non-traditional family structures were expressly rejected during deliberations. Factors such as the child’s welfare, the structure of Indian society, and concerns of legal parentage were identified as reasons behind the exclusion.
The Union further questioned the petitioner’s locus standi, pointing out that he holds an identity card identifying him as “male” and not “transgender” under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It also argued that once the petitioner undergoes hysterectomy and removal of ovaries, he would not be able to personally utilise the cryopreserved eggs.
According to the affidavit, the only remaining route for the petitioner, surrogacy, is also unavailable, as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 similarly excludes transgender persons from its ambit.
The Government additionally submitted that adoption laws such as the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, do not currently recognise transgender applicants. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Supriyo, which held that queer couples cannot claim a right to marriage or adoption.
The Centre maintained that any policy change allowing transgender persons to access ART services falls squarely within the domain of the legislature and medical experts. Judicial intervention, it contended, would not be appropriate in an area involving broad social and child-welfare implications.
The petitioner submitted that trans men are biologically capable of experiencing pregnancy, and therefore must be allowed to preserve their eggs. He argued that refusing permission amounts to a denial of reproductive autonomy protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
It was also contended that the ART Act does not impose a blanket bar on fertilisation-related procedures and that the right to access healthcare, recognised under Article 21 and reinforced by the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, includes reproductive health services.
Further, the petitioner relied on the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020, which prohibit discrimination on the ground of gender identity.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
