Centre questions Delhi HC's sperm rights ruling: Who inherits a deceased man's frozen sperm?

New Delhi (The Uttam Hindu): The central government has challenged a Delhi High Court order directing a private hospital to hand over the frozen sperm of an unmarried deceased man to his parents. A bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to the deceased's parents on the central government's petition.

The Center has challenged a 2024 single-judge ruling that held that there is no bar to using sperm or eggs for posthumous reproduction if the consent of the owner is clearly established. The bench has scheduled the petition for further hearing on February 27, 2026.

Centre says: Contrary to existing law

During the hearing, the lawyer representing the Centre argued that the single judge's order was contrary to the existing provisions of the Assisted Reproduction and Surrogacy Act. The lawyer pointed out that the law does not allow grandparents to become willing couples for the purpose of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy.

He also pointed out that despite the single judge's direction, the deceased's frozen sperm has not yet been handed over to the parents, and the contempt petition filed in this regard is still pending in the High Court. The court also asked the central government why there was a delay of more than a year in filing the appeal.

A single judge's order in 2024:

On October 4, 2024, a single-judge bench directed Sir Ganga Ram Hospital to hand over the deceased's frozen sperm to his parents. The judge issued this order following a petition from the parents and also directed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to consider whether a law, regulation, or guidelines were needed to address matters related to posthumous reproduction.

The petitioners' son had frozen a sperm sample before undergoing cancer treatment in 2020. Doctors advised him that chemotherapy could affect fertility. Therefore, in June 2020, he decided to have his sperm frozen at the hospital's IVF laboratory.

The single judge stated in his ruling that a sperm sample is property and, in the case of a deceased person, may be considered a human organ or part of biological material. The judge also noted that the petitioner's son had expressly consented to sperm freezing to preserve his fertility.