Home  > Recent Judgements  > CHILD TRAFFICKING THROUGH IVF AND SURROGACY CENTRES: SUPREME COURT SEEKS UNION GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE ON REGULATORY GAPS

Jun-02- 2026

CHILD TRAFFICKING THROUGH IVF AND SURROGACY CENTRES: SUPREME COURT SEEKS UNION GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE ON REGULATORY GAPS

Introduction

In a significant development concerning child protection and reproductive healthcare regulation, the Supreme Court of India has raised concerns over the potential misuse of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and surrogacy centres as channels for child trafficking. While hearing the matter of Pinki v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the Court examined submissions highlighting the absence of a dedicated mechanism to detect and prevent trafficking-related offences within fertility clinics and surrogacy arrangements.

The issue assumes particular importance in light of India’s rapidly expanding fertility industry, growing demand for assisted reproductive services, and alarming national statistics relating to missing and trafficked children. The case represents a crucial intersection of child rights, criminal law, reproductive healthcare regulation, and public policy.

Background of the Pinki Case

The matter originates from the Supreme Court’s continuing monitoring of child trafficking cases across the country. In its landmark judgment dated April 15, 2025, the Court issued extensive directions aimed at strengthening mechanisms for preventing child trafficking, rescuing victims, and ensuring effective inter-state coordination among law enforcement agencies.

Subsequently, during compliance proceedings, concerns emerged regarding the possibility of trafficking networks exploiting fertility clinics and surrogacy centres. The issue came to the forefront when certain accused persons in an ongoing trafficking investigation allegedly claimed to be associated with an IVF centre as “egg donors.”

These revelations prompted questions regarding whether existing regulatory safeguards under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 are adequate to prevent trafficking-related offences.

Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations, the Supreme Court had earlier directed the Delhi Police to investigate possible violations of the ART regulatory framework.

The Amicus Curiae's Concerns

Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, appointed as amicus curiae, submitted a detailed note before the Court highlighting significant gaps in the present regulatory structure.

According to the submissions, while the Union Government has established the statutory bodies mandated under the ART Act, including:

  • National Board;
  • National Registry;
  • State Boards;
  • Appropriate Authorities;

there is no dedicated Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically designed to prevent child trafficking through ART and surrogacy centres.

The amicus argued that the current legal framework focuses largely on:

  • Medical infrastructure;
  • Clinical standards;
  • Registration requirements;
  • Ethical treatment procedures;
  • Record maintenance obligations;

but does not comprehensively address trafficking risks, fraudulent procurement of children, illegal adoption practices, or organized criminal exploitation of fertility services.

Why ART and Surrogacy Centres Are Vulnerable

The fertility sector has witnessed remarkable growth over the last decade. Increasing infertility rates, delayed parenthood, advancements in reproductive medicine, and greater social acceptance of assisted reproduction have contributed to a surge in demand for IVF and surrogacy services.

However, this growth has also created vulnerabilities.

The amicus highlighted that couples approaching fertility centres are often emotionally vulnerable and deeply invested in having a child. Such circumstances can create opportunities for criminal networks to exploit desperate prospective parents through illegal means.

Potential risks include:

  1. Illegal Procurement of Children

Traffickers may attempt to present trafficked infants as children available through informal arrangements or fraudulent documentation.

  1. Identity Manipulation

False records regarding biological parentage, egg donation, embryo transfer, or surrogacy arrangements may be used to conceal trafficking activities.

  1. Exploitation of Women

Women acting as egg donors or surrogate mothers may themselves become victims of coercion, deception, or exploitation.

  1. Cross-State Criminal Networks

The absence of effective coordination mechanisms between states can enable traffickers to move children and falsify records across jurisdictions.

  1. Illegal Adoption Routes

Trafficking syndicates may attempt to bypass formal adoption procedures by misusing fertility-related processes.

The amicus emphasized that the regulatory framework must evolve to address these emerging threats.

Existing Legal Framework

Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

The ART Act was enacted to regulate fertility clinics and ART services throughout India.

Key objectives include:

  • Registration of ART clinics and banks;
  • Regulation of gamete donation;
  • Maintenance of medical records;
  • Protection of rights of donors and commissioning parents;
  • Prevention of unethical practices.

The Act established regulatory institutions at national and state levels to oversee compliance.

Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

The Surrogacy Act seeks to regulate surrogacy arrangements and prevent commercial exploitation.

The legislation:

  • Permits only certain forms of altruistic surrogacy;
  • Establishes eligibility criteria;
  • Requires registration and oversight;
  • Prescribes penalties for violations.

While these statutes create substantial safeguards for reproductive services, the amicus contends that they do not adequately address trafficking-specific concerns.

NCRB Data Highlights Growing Concern

The urgency of the issue is reflected in recent crime statistics.

The amicus referred to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) 2024 report, which indicates:

  • More than 6,000 trafficking cases reported nationwide;
  • A 7.8% increase in missing children’s cases;
  • Over 1.47 lakh children remaining untraced.

These figures reveal the continuing challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in combating trafficking and tracing missing children.

More importantly, trafficking patterns have evolved considerably.

Traditionally associated with:

  • Sexual exploitation;
  • Forced labour;

trafficking today increasingly includes:

  • Forced marriage;
  • Organ removal;
  • Criminal exploitation;
  • Illegal adoption;
  • Sale and purchase of infants and toddlers.

The changing nature of trafficking requires equally sophisticated regulatory and investigative responses.

Proposal for a Specialized Committee

To address these emerging challenges, the amicus proposed the formation of a specialized committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge.

The proposed body would include:

  • An IVF and reproductive medicine expert;
  • A senior police officer;
  • A lawyer or social worker experienced in trafficking cases.

The committee’s mandate would include:

Framing a Dedicated SOP –

Developing comprehensive protocols for:

  • Detection of suspicious activities;
  • Verification procedures;
  • Reporting obligations;
  • Investigation standards.

Strengthening Enforcement –

Ensuring effective implementation of safeguards under:

  • The ART Act;
  • The Surrogacy Act;
  • Child protection laws;
  • Anti-trafficking provisions.

Facilitating Inter-State Coordination –

Creating standardized mechanisms for information sharing and coordinated investigations.

Recommending Policy Reforms –

Identifying legislative and administrative gaps requiring further governmental action.

The amicus also suggested that the issue may be referred to another committee already constituted by a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court dealing with related concerns, thereby avoiding duplication of efforts.

Compliance Review Across States

The proceedings also reviewed compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions regarding anti-trafficking measures.

According to the amicus:

  • All States and Union Territories have constituted review committees.
  • Compliance reports have been submitted.

However, significant deficiencies remain.

Many states reportedly failed to clearly specify:

  • Functions of review committees;
  • Reporting structures;
  • Accountability mechanisms;
  • Scope of oversight powers.

Gujarat was cited as an example of better compliance due to its detailed terms of reference and clearly defined operational framework.

The Court’s continuing supervision indicates its concern that merely creating committees without establishing meaningful operational mechanisms may not effectively combat trafficking.

Judicial Concerns and Observations

The Court was informed about a particularly disturbing case in which a couple allegedly purchased a child and later abandoned her after believing she brought bad luck.

Such incidents demonstrate how trafficked children can become victims of repeated abuse and abandonment even after being removed from trafficking networks.

The Supreme Court’s ongoing scrutiny reflects a broader recognition that trafficking is no longer confined to traditional criminal patterns. Modern trafficking networks frequently exploit technological, medical, and administrative systems that were not originally designed to address such risks.

As reproductive technologies become more accessible, regulators may need to introduce specialized safeguards to ensure that legitimate fertility services are not misused for illegal purposes.

The Supreme Court’s Response

After hearing the submissions, the Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Viswanathan requested Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave to examine the amicus note and place the Union Government’s response on record.

The matter has been scheduled for further hearing on 19 August 2026.

The Union Government’s response is expected to clarify:

  • Whether a dedicated SOP is being considered;
  • Existing safeguards available under current laws;
  • Measures proposed to address trafficking risks in fertility centres;
  • Future regulatory reforms.

Broader Implications

The outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for:

Child Protection –

Enhanced safeguards could strengthen the detection and prevention of child trafficking networks.

Reproductive Healthcare Regulation –

Fertility clinics may become subject to stricter compliance and monitoring requirements.

Criminal Investigations –

Specialized procedures could improve investigation and prosecution of trafficking offences involving ART and surrogacy facilities.

Policy Development –

The case may lead to amendments in existing legislation or the introduction of new regulatory guidelines.

Human Rights Protection –

The proceedings reinforce the principle that advances in reproductive technology must be accompanied by equally robust protections against exploitation and abuse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s examination of trafficking risks within IVF and surrogacy ecosystems represents a significant step toward addressing emerging forms of child exploitation in India. While the ART Act and Surrogacy Act established an important regulatory framework, the concerns raised in the Pinki case suggest that additional safeguards may be necessary to respond to increasingly sophisticated trafficking methods.

As the Court continues to monitor nationwide anti-trafficking efforts, the forthcoming response of the Union Government may shape future regulatory policy for fertility clinics and surrogacy centres across India. The case highlights the need for a balanced approach—one that protects the rights of intending parents and supports legitimate reproductive healthcare services while ensuring that vulnerable children remain shielded from exploitation and trafficking.

The proceedings scheduled for August 2026 will therefore be closely watched by legal professionals, policymakers, child rights advocates, healthcare regulators, and the reproductive medicine community alike.