The Supreme Court has sought the response of the Union Government on concerns regarding child trafficking through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and surrogacy centres after an amicus curiae flagged serious regulatory gaps and the absence of a dedicated mechanism to prevent such offences.
The Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Viswanathan was hearing matters relating to compliance with its April 2025 judgment in Pinki vs State of Uttar Pradesh, which dealt with child trafficking and the need for stronger institutional safeguards.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat, serving as amicus curiae, informed the Court that there was presently no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifically designed to prevent trafficking of children through ART clinics and surrogacy facilities.
The issue arose in the course of an ongoing child trafficking investigation in which certain accused persons allegedly claimed to be egg donors associated with an IVF centre. Concerns regarding possible violations of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, had earlier been brought to the Court’s notice.
Taking cognisance of those allegations, the Supreme Court had directed the Delhi Police in August 2025 to conduct a separate investigation into the functioning of the concerned fertility centre and its compliance with the statutory framework governing ART services.
In a detailed note placed before the Court, the amicus pointed out that although the Union Government had established institutional bodies contemplated under the ART Act, including the National Board, National Registry, State Boards and Appropriate Authorities, no dedicated protocol presently existed to identify, prevent or investigate trafficking-related offences arising through ART and surrogacy centres.
The note stated that while the regulatory framework under the ART Act and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, contained elaborate provisions relating to registration, infrastructure, medical standards and eligibility requirements, it did not specifically address the risk of child trafficking or the misuse of fertility services for illegal adoption and trafficking networks.
According to the amicus, the growing number of trafficking cases involving fertility clinics and the increasing reliance on ART and surrogacy services by intending parents necessitated the formulation of advanced safeguards and specialised regulatory guidelines. It was argued that couples approaching such centres were often vulnerable and that the absence of targeted safeguards created opportunities for organised trafficking networks to exploit loopholes in the existing system.
The note also highlighted that the Union Government itself had acknowledged in status reports filed before the Court that no SOP currently existed for inter-state coordination in cases involving missing or trafficked children. The amicus submitted that this gap became even more significant when trafficking activities involved multiple jurisdictions and specialised medical establishments.
To address these concerns, the amicus proposed the constitution of a specialised committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge. The proposed committee would include an IVF expert, a senior police officer, a legal expert and a social worker experienced in trafficking-related matters.
The committee would be tasked with formulating a comprehensive SOP for the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of trafficking offences linked to ART and surrogacy clinics, while also strengthening implementation of safeguards under existing legislation.
The submissions were made during the Court’s review of nationwide compliance with directions issued in the 2025 verdict. The amicus informed the Bench that all States and Union Territories have now constituted review committees and submitted compliance reports in the prescribed format.
However, it was pointed out that most States have not clearly specified the functions, reporting structures or scope of these committees. Gujarat was cited as an exception, having framed detailed terms of reference and operational guidelines for its review mechanism.
The note further drew attention to data contained in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) Report, 2024. According to the report, more than 6,000 trafficking cases were registered during the year, while cases involving missing children increased by 7.8 per cent. The report also recorded that more than 1.47 lakh children remain untraced across the country.
The amicus cautioned that trafficking has evolved beyond traditional forms involving sexual exploitation and forced labour and now increasingly included trafficking for marriage, organ removal, forced criminal activities and illegal adoption of infants and young children. Reference was also made to a case in which a couple allegedly purchased a child and later abandoned her after believing that she had brought misfortune into their lives. The incident was cited as an example of the urgent need for stronger regulatory safeguards and oversight mechanisms.
The amicus further suggested that since a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court was already examining related issues through a separate committee, the present concerns could also be referred to that body to avoid duplication of efforts and ensure a coordinated policy response.
After considering the submissions, the Bench requested Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave to examine the note submitted by the amicus curiae and place the Union Government’s response on record. The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 19, 2026.
The post Supreme Court seeks Central response on allegations of child trafficking through IVF and surrogacy centres appeared first on India Legal.