Rare ‘male’ chromosomal condition doesn’t negate woman’s right to pursue motherhood through surrogacy: Telangana HC

Since she cannot conceive, the couple opted for the surrogacy method and applied to the district medical board as required under the Surrogacy Act. After the board issued a medical indication certificate (MIC), the couple approached a court as required under the Surrogacy Act. In June 2024, it issued an order regarding the child’s parentage and custody, to be born through surrogacy. The couple also obtained insurance coverage in favour of the surrogate mother as prescribed under the law.

However, in August 2025, the State Appropriate Authority (SAA) of assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy rejected their application. The authority relied on a Central government letter that opined that transgender persons were not covered under the Surrogacy Act.

It referred to a definition of a “couple” as a man (XY chromosome) and a woman (XX chromosome) and pointed to the petitioner woman’s “46 XY karyotype” as per the cytogenetic report from the Institute of Genetics and Hospital for Genetic Diseases to deem her not fit for surrogacy.

After a detailed scientific and medical analysis of the petitioner’s condition, review of medical literature and expert medical opinion of the district medical board, as well as the submission of the petitioner that her not possessing a uterus was specifically covered under the Rule 14(a) of the Surrogacy Act, the high court ruled that chromosome analysis 46 XY karyotype of the woman petitioner “cannot abridge her chances to beget a child through surrogacy”.

Rejection of application unwarranted, unjustifiable: Telangana High Court

Justice Bheemapaka criticised the SAA’s narrow interpretation of the law, stating that the rejection was “unwarranted” and “unjustifiable”. It said the rejection of the necessary certificate of essentiality and eligibility was liable to be set aside “even on humanitarian grounds too”. The court
directed the SA to issue the certificate to the petitioners immediately.

“Denying her an opportunity to get a child by surrogacy method on the ground that she is not a perfect woman is contrary to the letter and spirit of the 2021 Act and is nothing but denting the very purpose of the 2021 Act itself,” the judge stated.

The court added, “(The petitioner is) having all physical features of a woman; she is not a transgender (person) and she is fit to lead conjugal life. To her ill-luck, she is suffering from CAIS.”

Justice Bheemapaka emphasised that the Surrogacy Act is a beneficial piece of legislation intended to assist infertile couples in overcoming social taboos.

The court also noted the deep cultural and psychological impact of infertility in Indian society, stating that “marriage remains incomplete until the first child is born or adopted” and highlighted the “humiliation of childless parents” before beginning to evaluate the merits of the petitioners’ specific legal challenge against the rejection of their surrogacy application.