Delhi High Court allows surrogacy-seeking couple to join medical board proceedings virtually from Canada       

The Delhi High Court has allowed a couple to appear virtually from Canada and participate in surrogacy-related proceedings before the district medical board.

The high court noted that, as the board has to primarily examine the relevant medical records, it should not insist on the physical presence of the couple at this stage.

“In the opinion of this court, there is no reason why the district medical board should not take a pragmatic view of the matter and permit the petitioners to appear virtually, especially since the remit of the district medical board under Section 4(iii)(a) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, is primarily to examine the relevant medical record to ascertain as to whether the petitioners are eligible for issuance of a ‘Certificate of Medical Indication’ in their favour,” Justice Sachin Datta said in a November 10 order.

The court said the nature of the exercise is largely predicated on a perusal of the relevant medical record, and in case any clarification is required from the couple, a virtual interaction would suffice.

“There is also no rationale as to why the district medical board should not equip itself in conducting virtual hearings as is mandated for the State Board under Sections 5(3) and 5(4) of the Surrogacy Regulations, 2023,” the court said while setting aside a March order of the board and allowing the couple to appear virtually for the proceedings.

The authorised representative of the petitioners would appear physically before the board with the entire medical records, it said.

The court was hearing a plea by the couple, who got married in 2015 and has no child, residing and working in Canada since 2022.

The petitioners filed an application before the Delhi South district's medical board, seeking the 'Certificate of Medical Indication for Gestational Surrogacy' and also sought permission to attend the board's proceedings through a virtual hearing.

They expressed difficulty in appearing physically due to their residence and employment overseas, citing logistical difficulties in obtaining urgent leave approvals and high costs of international travel at short notice.

However, the board issued a notice directing them to appear physically, disallowing virtual participation.

The couple challenged the board's order before the high court.

The board’s counsel opposed the plea and emphasised the necessity of physical interaction to obviate the possibility of any kind of exploitation.