Amicus Flags Child Trafficking Through IVF, Surrogacy Centres; Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response
Now the interesting bit for your legal current affairs. The Supreme Court is looking at whether child trafficking is happening through IVF and surrogacy centres, where some accused allegedly posed as egg donors. The bench of Justice Pardiwala and Justice Viswanathan asked the Union government to respond, while monitoring its earlier Pinki versus State of UP judgment. So what's the takeaway? The law in play is the Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act of 2021, which controls fertility clinics. For your CLAT prep, just remember the ART Act 2021 and the Pinki case on child trafficking, because both could show up in a legal reasoning passage.
The Supreme Court is examining the need for a dedicated mechanism to prevent child trafficking through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and surrogacy centres, after concerns were raised about emerging trafficking networks allegedly exploiting gaps in the regulatory framework governing fertility clinics.
A Bench ofJustice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Viswanathan, while monitoring compliance with its April 2025 judgment in thePinki v. State of UPchild trafficking case, took note of submissions byamicus curiae Senior Advocate Aparna Bhathighlighting the absence of any Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to prevent trafficking through ART and surrogacy centres.
The concern stems from an ongoing child trafficking investigation in which several accused allegedly claimed to be "egg donors" associated with an IVF centre. The amicus had earlier flagged possible violations of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, prompting the Court in August 2025 to direct the Delhi Police to investigate that aspect separately.
In a detailed note submitted to the Court, the amicus stated that while the Union Government has constituted the National Board, National Registry, State Boards and Appropriate Authorities envisaged under the ART Act, there remains no SOP specifically aimed at preventing child trafficking through ART and surrogacy facilities.
The note observed that although the regulatory framework under the ART Act and the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 contains detailed provisions regarding infrastructure and medical standards, it does not specifically address trafficking risks.
"Given the way that the cases of trafficking are increasing in the ART Centres and the number of people opting for surrogacy and the sheer exposure of vulnerability of couples approaching these centers for wanting babies to parent and look after, these centers need advanced and critical guidelines to prevent the crimes,"the note stated.
The amicus also pointed out that the Union Government, in its status reports filed before the Court, acknowledged that no SOP currently exists for inter-state coordination in cases involving missing and trafficked children.
To address these concerns, the note proposed the constitution of a specialised committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge, with members including an IVF expert, a senior police officer and a lawyer or social worker experienced in trafficking cases. The proposed committee would frame an SOP for prevention and prosecution of trafficking offences arising out of ART and surrogacy clinics and for effective implementation of safeguards under the ART Act.
The submissions came in the course of the Court's review of nationwide compliance with directions issued in itsApril 15, 2025 judgment in Pinkiconcerning child trafficking. The amicus informed the Court that all States and Union Territories have now constituted review committees and filed compliance reports in the prescribed format. However, most States have not specified the functions, reporting mechanisms or scope of such committees, unlike Gujarat, which has laid down detailed terms of reference.
The note further highlighted alarming trafficking trends reflected in official data, citing the NCRB's 2024 report showing over 6,000 trafficking cases and a 7.8% increase in missing children cases, with more than 1.47 lakh children remaining untraced. It warned that trafficking has evolved beyond traditional forms involving sexual exploitation and labour to include trafficking for marriage, organ removal, forced criminality and illegal adoption of babies and toddlers.
Referring to a case where the couple had "purchased" a child and later abandoned her, believing she brought bad luck, Bhat suggested it's high time for advanced and critical guidelines in light of the increase of trafficking in IVF centres and the vulnerability of couples approaching those centres.
She recommended that since acoordinate benchhas set up a Committee and is dealing with similar issues, to avoid duplicity, the present issue may be referred to the said Committee.
Case Details: PINKI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1927 OF 2025