Read Time: 04 minutes
Postmortem Sperm Retrieval (PSR) is a process allowing the retrieval of viable sperm from a deceased individual for potential future use in Assisted Reproductive Therapy (ART).
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted interim relief to the family of a deceased man seeking Postmortem Sperm Retrieval. The bench of Justice Sachin Dutta directed, “The retrieved sperm shall be preserved by the Hospital where the procedure is performed, in accordance with the standard procedures”.
Per the facts of the case- Sumit, also known as Mannu, ended his life on January 22, 2025. His family, including his sister and parents, sought legal recourse to preserve his semen through the method of Postmortem Sperm Retrieval (PMSR).
The court had held that a semen sample constituted property under Indian law. “It was observed by the Court that the term ‘property’ under Indian jurisprudence includes both tangible and intangible assets encompassing the estate of the deceased”, the court added.
Considering the urgency of the matter and the need for the PMSR procedure to be performed swiftly, the court issued a notice. The respondents, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anuj Aggarwal, accepted the notice. In light of the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel, the court granted permission for the PMSR procedure to be conducted on the deceased’s body.
However, the counsel for the hospital identified as Respondent No. 2 informed the court that it lacked the necessary facilities to perform the procedure. Consequently, at the request of the petitioners’ counsel Advocate Raja Choudhary, the court directed the hospital to arrange for the PMSR procedure to be conducted at another facility equipped for the task. The process was to be carried out at the risk and cost of the petitioners. Additionally, the retrieved sperm was to be preserved following standard medical procedures, pending further orders in the writ petition.
The court clarified that its directive was issued in response to the petitioners' request due to the urgency of the situation. The matter was scheduled for the next hearing on July 8, 2025.
For Petitioner: Advocates Raja Choudhary, Sanyam Jain, Japdeep Singh Chahal, Amit Kr. Diwakar and Rahul PatelFor Respondent: Additional Standing Counsels Anuj Aggarwal and Udit Malik with Advocates Yash Upadhyay, Siddhant Dutt, Ishita Panday, Rima Rao, Palak Sharma and Vikrant N. GoyalCase Title: Heena v State (W.P.(C) 956/2025)
Please Login or Register
