“我們的兒子死了。現在我們可以用他的精子生孫子”

In a significant ruling, a couple from India has expressed their joy after a court ordered a hospital to release their deceased son's frozen sperm. This decision allows them to pursue having a grandchild through surrogacy, a process that has been a source of legal contention for the past four years. Harbir Kaur, the mother, shared her feelings with the BBC, stating, 'We were very unlucky, we lost our son. But the court has given us a very precious gift. We would now be able to get our son back. ' Their son, Preet Inder Singh, was only 30 years old when he passed away from Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Before starting chemotherapy, the hospital recommended that Preet store his sperm, as the treatment could negatively impact his fertility. Preet agreed, and his sperm was frozen on June 27, 2020. Tragically, he passed away just a few months later in September. When his parents sought access to the frozen sperm, the hospital denied their request, leading them to take legal action. The couple, both in their 60s, assured the court that they would raise any child born from their son's sperm. They also stated that their two daughters would take full responsibility for the child if anything were to happen to them. Justice Prathiba Singh, who presided over the case, noted that Indian law does not prohibit posthumous reproduction if the sperm owner had given consent. She emphasized that the parents were entitled to the sperm sample, as they became the legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act in the absence of a spouse or children. The couple approached the court with the hope of preserving their son's legacy and maintaining a connection with him. Harbir Kaur expressed her deep love for her son, saying, 'He loved his sisters and was much loved by his friends. He is the screensaver on my phone. I start my day by looking at his face every morning. ' They are considering using the sperm for surrogacy, with a relative willing to act as the surrogate. It is important to note that commercial surrogacy is illegal in India. The case is rare but not without precedent, as highlighted by the couple's lawyer, Suruchii Aggarwal. She referenced a previous case in Pune, where a woman successfully had twins using her deceased son's sperm. The court also cited international cases, including one from New York, where parents were allowed to use their deceased son's sperm to have a grandchild. However, the hospital initially rejected the couple's request, stating that they could only release the sperm to a spouse. They argued that there were no clear laws governing the release of sperm from an unmarried deceased male to his parents or legal heirs. The Indian government also opposed the couple's petition, asserting that surrogacy laws were designed to assist infertile couples, not grandparents seeking grandchildren. They pointed out that Preet Inder was unmarried and had not left any written or oral consent for the use of his frozen sperm. The couple's lawyer countered that Preet had indicated his intention for the sperm to be used for IVF when he filled out the storage form. The form included contact information for both Preet and his father, suggesting consent. Additionally, the father had been paying for the preservation of the sample. The ART Act was introduced to regulate surrogacy and fertility clinics, not to infringe upon the rights of grieving parents. Justice Singh agreed with the couple's argument, stating that Preet had indeed given consent for his sperm to be used for the purpose of having children. She concluded that since Preet was unmarried and had no partner, his parents, as his legal heirs, were entitled to access the sperm. The court's decision has provided Harbir Kaur with a renewed sense of hope. She expressed her feelings, saying, 'I have prayed every day to fulfill all my child’s unfulfilled desires. It’s taken four years, but my prayers have been answered.