1. Introduction

Cross-Border Fertility Biotech Tourism refers to the practice of individuals or couples travelling from their country of residence to another country to obtain fertility-related medical and biotechnological services that may be unavailable, legally restricted, prohibitively expensive, or subject to lengthy waiting periods in their home country.

It is also known as reproductive tourism or cross-border reproductive care.

The phenomenon has developed because of advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART), including:

In-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Egg and sperm donation.

Embryo donation and embryo freezing.

Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT).

Gestational surrogacy.

Mitochondrial replacement techniques.

Cross-border transport of reproductive tissues and embryos.

Fertility preservation and reproductive genetic technologies.

For example, a couple residing in a country where commercial surrogacy is prohibited may travel to another jurisdiction where certain forms of surrogacy are permitted. Similarly, a woman may travel abroad to receive donor-egg IVF because domestic law restricts access to donor gametes.

The legal difficulty is that reproductive treatment does not remain confined to one jurisdiction. It can involve different countries for treatment, gamete procurement, embryo storage, pregnancy, birth registration, parentage recognition and citizenship.

Consequently, cross-border fertility tourism raises questions of reproductive autonomy, human dignity, exploitation, informed consent, medical negligence, international private law, citizenship, parentage and children's rights.

2. Meaning and Essential Characteristics

Cross-border fertility tourism has five important characteristics.

A. Medical mobility

Patients travel internationally to access fertility treatments offered by foreign clinics, hospitals, laboratories or reproductive biotechnology companies.

B. Regulatory differences

Countries have different rules concerning:

Age limits for fertility treatment.

Eligibility of unmarried individuals and same-sex couples.

Anonymous or identifiable gamete donation.

Commercial and altruistic surrogacy.

Embryo creation and destruction.

Genetic screening.

Embryo research and storage.

C. Reproductive material mobility

Sperm, eggs and embryos may be collected in one country, transported to another and used for treatment in a third country.

D. Fragmented parentage

The person who provides genetic material, the person who carries the pregnancy and the person who intends to raise the child may be different individuals.

E. Transnational legal consequences

A child born through cross-border reproductive treatment may encounter difficulties concerning legal parentage, nationality, birth registration, inheritance and immigration.

3. Major Forms of Cross-Border Fertility Tourism

4. Legal Framework Governing Cross-Border Fertility Tourism in India

India is an important jurisdiction for studying reproductive biotechnology because it previously attracted international patients seeking IVF, egg donation and surrogacy services. The development of statutory regulation has significantly changed the legal environment.

A. Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Act No. 42 of 2021) came into force on 25 January 2022.

Its primary objectives include:

Registration and regulation of ART clinics.

Registration and supervision of ART banks.

Regulation of gamete collection and storage.

Protection of donors and patients.

Informed consent for reproductive procedures.

Prevention of exploitation and unethical reproductive practices.

Regulation of embryo and gamete handling.

Protection of confidentiality and reproductive information.

Important provisions

The legislation seeks to ensure that fertility treatment is undertaken through regulated institutions rather than unregulated commercial arrangements.

Official text: ART (Regulation) Act, 2021 – India Code.

B. Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (Act No. 47 of 2021) came into force on 25 January 2022.

Its central objective is to prevent commercial exploitation of surrogate mothers and establish a regulated system for surrogacy.

Important provisions include:

Section 3: Regulation of surrogacy clinics.

Section 4: Conditions under which surrogacy may be undertaken.

Section 5: Prohibition of unauthorised surrogacy.

Section 6: Written informed consent of the surrogate mother.

Section 7: Prohibition on abandoning a child born through surrogacy, including a child born outside India.

Section 8: Legal rights of a child born through surrogacy.

Section 35: Appointment of appropriate authorities.

The Act permits altruistic surrogacy subject to statutory eligibility and medical requirements and prohibits commercial surrogacy.

Cross-border significance: Section 7 is particularly important because it expressly addresses children born through surrogacy outside India. Intended parents cannot avoid their responsibility towards a child merely because the child was born abroad or has a genetic or medical condition.

The Act should not, however, be interpreted as automatically criminalising every Indian citizen who travels abroad for every form of fertility treatment. The legal position depends on the procedure, the applicable statutory provisions, the persons involved and the territorial reach of the relevant law.

Official text: Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 – India Code.

C. Foreign patients and reproductive service providers

Foreign patients seeking treatment in India must consider:

Whether the clinic is registered.

Whether the ART bank is authorised.

Whether the procedure is permitted under Indian law.

Whether donor consent requirements are satisfied.

Whether the patient is legally eligible for the particular treatment.

Whether the treatment involves prohibited commercial surrogacy.

Whether the child's legal parentage can be established.

A foreign nationality or medical visa does not exempt a patient or provider from applicable Indian reproductive-health legislation.

D. Foreign surrogacy arrangements and Indian law

Indian law creates a distinction between ordinary ART treatment and surrogacy.

For example, an Indian couple travelling abroad for IVF is not necessarily in the same legal position as an Indian couple entering into a commercial surrogacy arrangement abroad.

The latter raises additional questions concerning the Surrogacy Act, parental responsibility, immigration, citizenship and recognition of foreign birth documents.

5. International Legal Framework

Cross-border fertility tourism is governed by several overlapping international legal principles.

A. Right to private and family life

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects private and family life.

Reproductive autonomy, personal identity, family relationships and the legal identity of children born through assisted reproduction can fall within its protection.

B. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Important provisions include:

Article 3: Best interests of the child.

Article 7: Right to birth registration, a name and nationality.

Article 8: Preservation of identity.

Article 9: Protection of family relationships.

Article 24: Right to health.

These provisions are particularly important where a child born through international surrogacy faces difficulties obtaining citizenship or legal parentage.

C. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 17 protects individuals against arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy and family life.

Article 23 recognises the family as a fundamental social unit entitled to protection.

D. Hague Conference on Private International Law

The Hague Conference on Private International Law has examined the international legal problems associated with parentage and surrogacy.

Its work addresses:

Recognition of foreign parentage.

International jurisdiction.

Applicable law.

Recognition of foreign judicial decisions.

Prevention of legal parentage conflicts.

Protection of children born through international surrogacy.

The absence of a comprehensive, universally applicable international convention governing international surrogacy remains an important source of legal uncertainty.

6. Important Judicial Decisions and Case Laws

The following cases establish important principles concerning reproductive tourism, foreign surrogacy, reproductive autonomy, legal parentage and children's rights.

1. Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India (2008)

Indian Supreme Court

Citation: (2008) 13 SCC 518.

Facts:

A Japanese couple entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India. A child, Baby Manji, was born in Gujarat in July 2008.

Following marital disputes between the commissioning parents, the child's legal and custodial position became uncertain. The genetic father returned to Japan, and questions arose concerning the child's identity, custody, passport and nationality.

Legal issues:

Whether international surrogacy arrangements could create legal uncertainty.

Whether the child could be left without adequate parental protection.

Whether the grandmother could take steps concerning the child's custody.

Whether Indian law could address the consequences of international reproductive arrangements.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court considered the unusual circumstances surrounding the child's birth and custody. It recognised that the matter raised important questions concerning surrogacy and the legal position of a child born through reproductive technology.

The Court permitted the grandmother to take steps necessary for the child's care and travel documentation.

Legal principles:

Surrogacy arrangements can create complicated questions of custody and parentage.

The welfare of the child requires particular attention.

International reproductive arrangements may produce immigration and nationality difficulties.

The legal consequences of reproductive agreements cannot be considered independently of the child's rights.

Importance: This is a foundational Indian judgment concerning international surrogacy and reproductive tourism.

Source:

Indian Kanoon

2. Jan Balaz v. Anand Municipality (2009)

Citation: Special Civil Application No. 3020 of 2008, Gujarat High Court, judgment dated 11 November 2009.

Facts:

A German couple entered into a surrogacy arrangement in India. Twins were born through the arrangement in Anand, Gujarat.

The children faced difficulties concerning German nationality, Indian travel documentation and the recognition of their parentage.

Legal issues:

Whether children born through international surrogacy could acquire Indian nationality.

Whether foreign commissioning parents could obtain recognition of parentage.

Whether the children could be issued travel documents.

Whether the child's interests should take priority over conflicting nationality rules.

Decision and significance:

The Gujarat High Court considered the nationality and legal identity problems arising from the surrogacy arrangement. The case demonstrated that birth in India and genetic connection to an intended parent do not necessarily resolve nationality and parentage questions in another country.

The dispute also illustrated the need for cooperation between Indian and foreign authorities.

Legal principles:

Citizenship is governed by the applicable nationality legislation.

Genetic parentage and legal parentage are not necessarily identical.

Children born through international surrogacy require protection against statelessness and legal uncertainty.

3. Mennesson v. France (2014)

European Court of Human Rights

Application No.: 65192/11.

Facts:

A French couple travelled to the United States and entered into a gestational surrogacy arrangement. Twins were born through the arrangement.

Although the American authorities recognised the intended parents under the applicable law, French authorities refused to recognise the parent-child relationship in France.

Legal issue:

Whether refusing to recognise the parentage of children born through foreign surrogacy violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judgment:

The European Court of Human Rights found no violation concerning the intended parents' right to respect for family life, but found a violation of the children's right to respect for private life.

The Court emphasised that legal identity and parentage are important elements of a child's private life.

Legal principles:

States have discretion in regulating surrogacy.

That discretion is not unlimited.

A child's identity and legal parentage must receive protection.

A state cannot disregard the practical consequences of denying recognition to a child's established parent-child relationship.

Importance: The judgment is a leading authority on the consequences of cross-border reproductive tourism.

Source:

ECHR+1

4. Labassee v. France (2014)

Application No.: 65941/11.

Facts:

A French couple used gestational surrogacy in the United States. The resulting child was recognised under American law as their child.

French authorities refused to recognise the foreign parentage arrangement.

Judgment:

The European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 8 concerning the child's right to respect for private life.

Legal principles:

The child's identity deserves independent legal protection.

Legal uncertainty concerning parentage can affect personal identity.

States must consider the consequences of their refusal to recognise foreign reproductive arrangements.

Importance: The case reinforces the principle that restrictions on surrogacy should not result in disproportionate harm to children.

5. Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (2017)

Grand Chamber – ECtHR

Application No.: 25358/12.

Facts:

An Italian couple entered into a surrogacy arrangement in Russia. A child was born and brought to Italy.

Subsequently, authorities discovered that neither intended parent had a biological relationship with the child. Italian authorities removed the child from their care.

Legal issue:

Whether removing the child from the intended parents violated their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judgment:

The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 8.

It considered the absence of a biological relationship, the short duration of the relationship and the circumstances in which the child had been brought into Italy.

Legal principles:

States have a margin of appreciation in regulating international surrogacy.

Intended parenthood does not automatically override national adoption and parentage laws.

The absence of a biological connection may be relevant.

The best interests of the child remain central.

Importance: This judgment illustrates that foreign surrogacy arrangements are not automatically entitled to recognition in the receiving country.

Source:

HUDOC+1

6. Advisory Opinion of the European Court of Human Rights (2019)

Reference: Request No. P16-2018-001.

Facts:

The French Court of Cassation requested an advisory opinion concerning recognition of the legal relationship between a child born through foreign surrogacy and the intended mother.

Decision:

The European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 does not require states to recognise the intended mother's parentage through one particular legal mechanism.

However, the child's relationship with the intended mother must be capable of recognition under domestic law.

Legal principles:

Recognition may occur through adoption or another legally effective mechanism.

States retain discretion regarding the method of recognition.

The child's best interests must be considered.

Recognition must be practically possible without undue delay.

Importance: This opinion provides an important framework for resolving foreign surrogacy parentage disputes.

Source:

Bailii

7. Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v. XX (2020)

UK Supreme Court

Citation: [2020] UKSC 14.

Facts:

A woman suffered infertility following medical negligence by a hospital. She sought damages for the costs of surrogacy, including arrangements in California involving commercial surrogacy.

Legal issue:

Whether the costs of foreign commercial surrogacy could be recovered as damages when such arrangements differed from the domestic legal framework.

Judgment:

The UK Supreme Court allowed recovery of reasonable costs of foreign commercial surrogacy in the circumstances of the case.

It also accepted that reasonable costs of domestic surrogacy using donor eggs could be recoverable, subject to reasonable prospects of success.

Legal principles:

Reproductive loss may give rise to compensable damage.

Reasonable foreign fertility treatment expenses are not automatically excluded because the foreign jurisdiction permits arrangements that differ from domestic law.

Public policy must be evaluated in its contemporary legal context.

Medical negligence can have substantial consequences for reproductive autonomy.

Importance: This judgment demonstrates the relationship between cross-border fertility services, medical negligence and compensation law.

Source:

UK Supreme Court+1

8. XYZ v. Union of India (2024) – VHL Syndrome Surrogacy Case

Court: Bombay High Court, 9 February 2024.

Facts:

The petitioner intended couple faced a medical condition involving Von Hippel–Lindau (VHL) syndrome. The medical circumstances raised questions concerning the use of donor gametes in gestational surrogacy.

The amended regulatory framework had imposed restrictions concerning the use of donor gametes.

Legal issue:

Whether delegated rules could impose restrictions inconsistent with the parent legislation and prevent medically necessary reproductive treatment.

Judgment:

The Bombay High Court held that the donor-gamete restriction introduced through the amended rules was ultra vires the parent Act in the circumstances before it.

Legal principles:

Delegated legislation cannot override its parent statute.

Medical indications must be considered within the statutory framework.

Reproductive regulations must be interpreted consistently with the rights and protections provided by legislation.

The child's legal status must remain protected.

Importance: This judgment illustrates the conflict between reproductive biotechnology, medical necessity and administrative regulation.

Source:

IndiaCode+1

9. Intending Couples v. Union of India (2023)

Court: Karnataka High Court, 18 November 2023.

Facts:

The petitioners challenged restrictions on the use of donor gametes in gestational surrogacy under the amended regulatory framework.

Legal issue:

Whether a subordinate regulatory form could impose a blanket restriction inconsistent with the parent legislation and applicable medical-indication rules.

Legal significance:

The Karnataka High Court considered the relationship between the Surrogacy Act, its Rules and the restrictions imposed through amended forms.

The decision is relevant to the principle that administrative forms cannot introduce substantive prohibitions beyond the authority granted by legislation.

Source:

IndiaCode

10. Supreme Court proceedings concerning donor gametes (2024)

Reference: W.P. (C) No. 26590 of 2022 and connected proceedings; order dated 23 February 2024.

The Supreme Court considered the amended Surrogacy Rules and the restrictions relating to donor gametes.

The subsequent amendment dated 21 February 2024 provided that:

An intending couple must ordinarily use both their own gametes.

Where a District Medical Board certifies that either spouse has a medical condition necessitating a donor gamete, donor gametes may be used, provided at least one gamete comes from the intending couple.

A single intending woman who is a widow or divorcee must use her own eggs and donor sperm.

Importance: The proceedings demonstrate the significance of judicial scrutiny over reproductive biotechnology regulations and the balance between medical necessity and statutory eligibility.

Source:

Sci API

7. Major Legal Issues in Cross-Border Fertility Tourism

A. Reproductive autonomy and fundamental rights

Reproductive autonomy concerns an individual's ability to make decisions about reproduction, fertility treatment, pregnancy and family formation.

Cross-border fertility tourism becomes relevant when domestic restrictions prevent individuals from accessing particular reproductive procedures.

The constitutional and human-rights questions include:

Whether individuals have a protected interest in deciding whether to reproduce.

Whether restrictions on fertility treatment are proportionate.

Whether access to reproductive technology should depend on marital status.

Whether restrictions discriminate against particular categories of intended parents.

Whether the state has a positive obligation to protect reproductive health.

In India, these questions may be examined through Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Relevant cases:

Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1 – reproductive choice and personal liberty.

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 – privacy, dignity and decisional autonomy.

These decisions provide constitutional principles relevant to reproductive decision-making, although neither directly decides the legality of cross-border fertility tourism.

B. Legal parentage disputes

One of the most complicated problems is determining who is legally recognised as the child's parent.

Consider the following situation:

Intended parents reside in India.

An egg donor is from another country.

Fertilisation takes place in a foreign laboratory.

A surrogate carries the pregnancy in a third country.

The child is born in that country.

The following questions arise:

Is the genetic mother the legal mother?

Does the gestational mother acquire legal motherhood?

Can intended parents obtain parentage recognition?

Does the foreign birth certificate establish parentage in India?

Can Indian authorities refuse recognition?

What happens if the foreign country and India apply different parentage rules?

The decisions in Mennesson, Labassee and Paradiso and Campanelli are especially relevant.

C. Citizenship and statelessness

A child born through cross-border fertility treatment may face nationality problems.

For example, the country of birth may recognise the intended parents, whereas the parents' home country may refuse to recognise the foreign surrogacy arrangement.

This can produce:

Delayed passports.

Inability to travel.

Uncertainty concerning nationality.

Problems with birth registration.

Difficulties obtaining residence permits.

Risk of statelessness.

Article 7 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is particularly relevant.

D. Exploitation of egg donors and surrogate mothers

International fertility markets may create economic inequalities between intended parents and reproductive donors.

Potential abuses include:

Financial coercion.

Inadequate medical screening.

Inadequate compensation or insurance.

Misleading consent documents.

Repeated egg retrieval procedures.

Unsafe hormone stimulation.

Lack of long-term medical monitoring.

Pressure to undergo pregnancy termination.

The legal system must distinguish voluntary reproductive participation from exploitation.

E. Informed consent and medical negligence

Fertility tourism involves treatment across different healthcare systems.

Patients may not understand:

Medical risks.

Success rates.

Embryo storage conditions.

Genetic screening limitations.

Donor anonymity policies.

Multiple-pregnancy risks.

The legal status of frozen embryos.

A clinic's failure to disclose material risks may result in civil liability, professional disciplinary action or regulatory consequences under the applicable law.

F. Embryo ownership and storage disputes

Embryos created through IVF may remain stored in foreign fertility clinics.

Disputes can arise when:

A couple separates.

One intended parent withdraws consent.

A donor withdraws consent where legally permitted.

A clinic becomes insolvent.

A clinic closes.

Storage fees remain unpaid.

One party wishes to use embryos and another objects.

The legal question is whether embryos should be classified as property, reproductive material, protected biological entities or a distinct legal category.

The answer varies between jurisdictions.

G. Genetic testing and discrimination

Cross-border fertility treatment frequently involves preimplantation genetic testing.

This raises issues concerning:

Genetic privacy.

Disability discrimination.

Selection of embryos based on genetic characteristics.

Sex selection.

Genetic data transfer.

Consent to future genetic research.

Commercialisation of reproductive genetic information.

In India, the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 is also relevant to prohibitions on sex selection.

H. Medical tourism fraud and contractual liability

Patients may enter into agreements with foreign fertility clinics, brokers and reproductive agencies.

Potential contractual disputes include:

False promises of pregnancy success.

Misrepresentation of donor characteristics.

Hidden medical expenses.

Unauthorised embryo transfers.

Failure to preserve frozen embryos.

Failure to provide medical records.

Unauthorised disclosure of reproductive information.

The applicable contract law, consumer protection law and medical negligence principles depend on the jurisdiction and the relevant contractual relationships.

8. Conflict of Laws and Jurisdictional Problems

Cross-border fertility tourism is fundamentally a private international law problem.

Important conflict-of-laws doctrines

1. Lex loci actus: The law of the place where the relevant act occurred may be relevant.

2. Lex domicilii: The law of the person's domicile may be relevant to certain personal-status questions.

3. Public policy exception: A court may refuse to recognise a foreign arrangement where recognition would violate fundamental domestic legal principles.

4. Best interests of the child: Courts must consider the practical consequences for the child when determining parentage and custody.

5. Comity: Courts may give appropriate consideration to foreign legal decisions while preserving domestic legal requirements.

A foreign surrogacy contract or birth certificate is therefore not automatically conclusive in another jurisdiction.

9. Regulatory Challenges in Cross-Border Fertility Tourism

The major regulatory challenges can be classified as follows.

10. Liability of Fertility Clinics and Biotechnology Companies

Fertility clinics and reproductive biotechnology companies may incur several forms of liability.

A. Civil liability

A clinic may be liable for negligence, breach of contract or failure to obtain informed consent.

B. Criminal liability

Criminal liability may arise where the conduct satisfies the elements of an applicable offence, including prohibited commercial surrogacy, unlawful trafficking or other statutory violations.

C. Regulatory liability

A clinic may face:

Suspension of registration.

Cancellation of registration.

Financial penalties.

Investigation by appropriate authorities.

Restrictions on reproductive procedures.

D. Data protection liability

Genetic information and reproductive-health information require appropriate protection.

Unauthorised disclosure or unlawful processing may trigger applicable data protection obligations.

E. International enforcement

A patient may obtain a judgment in the country where treatment occurred but face difficulties enforcing it in the country where the clinic or its assets are located.

This makes jurisdiction, applicable law and enforcement clauses particularly important in fertility treatment agreements.

11. Proposed Legal and Regulatory Reforms

A more effective framework for cross-border fertility tourism should include the following measures.

1. International recognition framework

Countries should develop common principles concerning parentage recognition and children's legal identity.

2. Mandatory clinic accreditation

Foreign fertility clinics should be subject to transparent licensing, inspection and professional standards.

3. Donor protection

Egg and sperm donors should receive appropriate medical screening, informed consent and confidentiality protection.

4. Surrogate mother protection

Surrogate mothers should have independent legal advice, medical insurance and protection against coercion.

5. Embryo transportation standards

International transport should require traceability, temperature monitoring, secure documentation and consent verification.

6. Genetic data protection

International transfers of reproductive and genetic information should comply with applicable privacy laws.

7. Child identity protection

Children should not suffer legal disadvantages because of conflicts between the reproductive laws of different countries.

8. International dispute resolution

Countries should develop effective procedures for resolving cross-border parentage, custody and medical negligence disputes.

9. Transparent treatment agreements

Patients should receive clear information about costs, medical risks, refund policies, storage conditions and legal consequences.

10. Prevention of reproductive exploitation

Regulators should monitor brokers, clinics and agencies involved in international reproductive arrangements.

12. Comparative Legal Position

The differences between national laws are a principal reason why intended parents seek fertility services abroad.

13. Critical Analysis

Cross-border fertility tourism represents a major challenge for contemporary reproductive law because reproductive technology develops faster than international legal harmonisation.

There is a fundamental tension between three competing interests:

First: Individual reproductive autonomy.

Individuals seek access to medical technologies that may enable them to establish families despite infertility or other medical barriers.

Second: Protection against exploitation.

Reproductive markets can expose economically vulnerable women and donors to financial pressure, medical risks and unequal bargaining power.

Third: Protection of children's rights.

Children should not face uncertainty concerning their identity, citizenship, parentage or inheritance because adults have entered into reproductive arrangements across national borders.

The most significant difficulty is that the law may regulate the fertility clinic, the donor, the surrogate mother and the intended parents under different legal systems.

A treatment may be lawful in the country where it occurs but produce legal consequences that are not recognised in the intended parents' home country.

The decisions in Mennesson, Paradiso and Campanelli and Baby Manji Yamada demonstrate different aspects of this problem.

The legal approach should therefore avoid treating fertility tourism solely as a medical tourism issue. It must also be understood as a question of international family law, constitutional law, human rights, biotechnology regulation and international cooperation.

14. Important Case Law Summary

15. Conclusion

Cross-Border Fertility Biotech Tourism is an emerging field at the intersection of reproductive medicine, international private law, biotechnology regulation and human rights.

Its legal significance extends beyond the right to obtain fertility treatment. It involves the legal recognition of parentage, protection of reproductive donors, prevention of exploitation, citizenship, genetic privacy, medical negligence and the international enforcement of reproductive agreements.

In India, the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 provide the principal statutory framework.

Judicial decisions such as Baby Manji Yamada, Mennesson, Paradiso and Campanelli and Whittington Hospital demonstrate that national reproductive laws must be considered alongside the legal interests of intended parents, reproductive participants and, particularly, children.

The central legal principle is that international reproductive mobility should not result in the exploitation of reproductive participants or deprive children of their identity, dignity, legal parentage and fundamental rights.

16. Important Research Sources

Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 – India Code.

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 – India Code.

Baby Manji Yamada v. Union of India – Supreme Court.

European Court of Human Rights – Reproductive Rights Case Law.

ECtHR Advisory Opinion on Foreign Surrogacy (2019).

Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v. XX (2020).

.

Research note: The cases concerning foreign surrogacy are particularly important, but they do not establish a universal right to access every form of fertility treatment abroad. The precise legal outcome depends on the treatment, the applicable national laws and the child's circumstances.