Father-Son Relation Does Not Confer Fundamental Right To Collect Deceased Son's Preserved Sperm: Calcutta High Court

Coverage of this article

KEY TAKEAWAYS

-On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court ruled out that a father has no fundamental right to collect his deceased son's preserved sperm solely on basis on father-son relationship.

INTRODUCTION

-In the case of Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India &Ors, the petitioner was unsuccessful to obtain the sperm of his deceased son, which was preserved in St. Stephen Hospital. 

FURTHER DETAILS

-The petitioner's son was a patient of Thalassemia and he was married at the time of his death. 

CONCLUSION

-The right embraced by the petitioner for himself are not only delusional but also non-existent. 

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• On Tuesday, the Calcutta High Court ruled out that a father has no fundamental right to collect his deceased son's preserved sperm solely on basis on father-son relationship.
• Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya also commented that deceased man's wife has primary rights over that preserved sperm.

INTRODUCTION

In the case of Asok Kumar Chatterjee vs. The Union of India &Ors, the petitioner was unsuccessful to obtain the sperm of his deceased son, which was preserved in St. Stephen Hospital. His son was a patient of Thalassemia and was married at the time of death.

The hospital notified the petitioner the sperm which was meant to provide pregnancy to the donor's wife or someone else can be further used only with permission of the wife.

Writ petition was dismissed by the Court on two grounds. First, the matter of the case did not violate fundamental rights of petitioner and second that the wife (respondent) does not come within definition of State.

FURTHER DETAILS

The petitioner's son was a patient of Thalassemia and he was married at the time of his death. During his lifetime his sperm was preserved in the St. Stephen Hospital.

The request of the petitioner to direct the deceased man's wife to no objection statement with respect to release her husband's preserved sperm to petitioner was also dismissed by the Court.

CONCLUSION

The right embraced by the petitioner for himself are not only delusional but also non-existent. This finding of the court proved that the petitioner had no right over progeny of his son.

To download the original copy of the judgment: Click Here