Introduction:

The case of Mrs. Sr-rcharitha Gangireddygari vs. State of Telangana, Writ Petition No. 27169 of 2025, heard by the Telangana High Court, raises profound questions on parenthood, legality of surrogacy procedures, and the welfare of a child caught in the middle of medical malpractice and legal complexities. The petitioners, Mrs. Sr-rcharitha Gangireddygari and her husband, had approached the Court after their baby daughter, named Hiya, was taken away by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) on the ground that the surrogacy arrangement violated the provisions of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. The couple contended that they had availed the services of Dr. Namratha and Universal Srushti Fertility Centre to have a surrogate baby and were under the impression that the baby was biologically theirs. However, when the baby fell sick and underwent medical tests, the shocking discovery was made that the DNA of the child did not match theirs. Despite this revelation, the couple accepted the baby wholeheartedly and decided to raise her as their own, but also filed a complaint exposing what they described as a fraudulent surrogacy racket. Following their complaint, the authorities launched an investigation, and the Child Welfare Committee took custody of the baby, citing uncertainty over her biological origin. Aggrieved, the parents approached the High Court, seeking immediate restoration of custody, as they had raised the child since birth and bonded with her over two months before she was separated from them. The matter came before Justice T. Madhavi Devi, who had to balance the legal intricacies of surrogacy law with the pressing humanitarian question of a child’s immediate welfare.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

The petitioners, represented by advocate M/s Anuradha Cherukuri, argued that they were innocent victims of a well-orchestrated scam perpetrated by the fertility centre and its head, Dr. Namratha. They submitted that they entered into the surrogacy arrangement with the bona fide belief that the baby would be genetically theirs. They also pointed out that the birth certificate of baby Hiya was legally issued with their names recorded as parents, which established a lawful parental relationship recognized by the state. While the DNA test results had shown otherwise, the petitioners emphasized that they had never abandoned the baby, had been her primary caregivers since birth, and had formed a strong emotional bond with her. They argued that the mere discovery of genetic mismatch should not be a ground to sever the parent-child relationship that had already developed. The petitioners further submitted that the removal of the baby by the Child Welfare Committee was arbitrary and caused deep emotional distress both to the child and to them as parents. They contended that the welfare of the child, which is the paramount principle in matters of custody, required that she be restored to their care, as they had provided a stable and nurturing environment since her birth. In addition, they argued that by exposing the fraudulent practices of the fertility centre, they had acted in good faith to protect not just themselves but also other unsuspecting couples from falling prey to such scams. Thus, instead of punishing them by taking away their daughter, the state should recognize their victimhood and allow them to continue raising Hiya as their own.

Arguments of the Respondents:

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the State authorities and the Child Welfare Committee, justified their actions by pointing to violations of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021. They contended that the Act lays down strict procedures and eligibility conditions for surrogacy, and the involvement of Dr. Namratha and Universal Srushti Fertility Centre appeared to be in blatant contravention of the statutory requirements. The respondents further argued that since the child’s genetic origin could not be traced back to the petitioners, her true parentage remained shrouded in uncertainty. They maintained that the state had a duty to ensure the safety, legality, and legitimacy of the child’s placement, and until the investigations were completed, the baby’s custody had to remain with the Child Welfare Committee. According to them, this was not an arbitrary move but a precautionary step in compliance with the statutory framework and in the larger interest of the child. The respondents also highlighted the possibility of human trafficking, child swapping, or other malpractices in surrogacy procedures, which made it imperative for the state to intervene immediately. They contended that while the petitioners’ emotional attachment to the baby was understandable, the law had to be upheld to prevent similar scams from proliferating. Furthermore, the respondents assured the Court that the welfare of the child was not being neglected while in CWC custody and that her care was being monitored in accordance with child protection laws. Thus, they requested the Court not to hastily return the child until the matter was thoroughly investigated.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice T. Madhavi Devi, after considering the submissions of both sides, delivered a balanced but empathetic ruling. The Court noted that while the matter undoubtedly fell within the ambit of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, the petitioners could not be held culpable for the violations committed by the fertility centre. On the contrary, the Court observed that the petitioners were clearly victims of a scam that had exploited their desire to have a child. Justice Madhavi Devi underscored that the welfare of the child must be the paramount consideration, overriding procedural technicalities. The Court pointed out that the child’s birth certificate explicitly named the petitioners as parents, which provided legal recognition to their relationship. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the child had been in the continuous care of the petitioners for two months since birth until the CWC took custody, which meant that a parental bond had already been established. Breaking this bond without justifiable cause, the Court held, was detrimental to the child’s emotional and psychological well-being. The Bench further remarked that separating a two-month-old infant from her caregivers was both traumatic and unnecessary, especially when no wrongdoing was attributed to the petitioners themselves. The Court acknowledged the state’s responsibility to investigate the fraudulent surrogacy practices but clarified that such investigations should not come at the cost of the child’s welfare or the rights of innocent parents. Justice Madhavi Devi, therefore, directed the respondents, particularly the Child Welfare Committee, to hand over immediate custody of baby Hiya to the petitioners. At the same time, the Court permitted the authorities to visit and monitor the child’s welfare as they deemed necessary to ensure her safety. This monitoring, the Court noted, would strike a balance between the interests of justice, the welfare of the child, and the need to continue probing the fertility centre’s malpractice. With these observations, the Court adjourned the matter to 15.10.2025 for filing of counters by the respondents, thereby keeping the door open for further deliberations while safeguarding the immediate welfare of the child and the rights of the petitioners.