Pranav B Prem

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to the family of a deceased man, allowing Postmortem Sperm Retrieval (PMSR). The court directed that the retrieved sperm be preserved following standard procedures pending further orders.

Court’s Directions on PMSR

The bench of Justice Sachin Datta directed: “The retrieved sperm shall be preserved by the Hospital where the procedure is performed, in accordance with the standard procedures.” The deceased, Sumit, also known as Mannu, ended his life on January 22, 2025. His family, including his sister and parents, sought legal permission to retrieve and preserve his semen through PMSR.

Semen Sample as Property Under Indian Law

The court observed that semen samples constitute property under Indian law. Referring to legal precedents, the court noted: “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 judgment relied on Gurvinder Singh & Anr. v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors., where the court extensively discussed the meaning of ‘property’ under Indian law: “Under Indian law, ‘property’ includes both tangible and intangible property. The estate of a deceased would also be included in the term ‘property.’” The court further noted: “In the absence of any prohibition under existing law, this Court is unable to read a restriction where none exists.”

Urgency and Execution of the Order

Considering the urgency of the situation, the court issued a notice to the respondents, which was accepted by Additional Standing Counsel Anuj Aggarwal. Acknowledging the necessity for immediate action, the court granted permission for the PMSR procedure to be conducted on the deceased’s body. However, the counsel representing the hospital (Respondent No. 2) informed the court that it lacked the necessary facilities to perform the procedure. Consequently, at the request of petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Raja Choudhary, the court directed the hospital to make arrangements for the procedure at another facility equipped for the task. The court ruled: “In the circumstances, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 hospital is directed to endeavour to arrange for the PMSR procedure to be performed through any other hospital which is equipped to do so, at the risk and cost of the petitioners.” Additionally, the retrieved sperm was to be preserved following standard medical procedures pending further judicial orders.

Court’s Clarification on Interim Relief

The court clarified that its directive was issued in response to the petitioners' request due to the urgency of the situation: “It is made clear that the above directions have been passed at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the urgency of the matter.” The case is scheduled for the next hearing on July 8, 2025.

The petitioners were represented by Advocates Raja Choudhary, Sanyam Jain, Japdeep Singh Chahal, Amit Kr. Diwakar, and Rahul Patel. The respondents were represented by Additional Standing Counsels Anuj Aggarwal and Udit Malik, along with Advocates Yash Upadhyay, Siddhant Dutt, Ishita Panday, Rima Rao, Palak Sharma, and Vikrant N. Goyal.

Cause Title: Heena v State 

Case No: W.P.(C) 956/2025

Date: January-24-2025

Bench: Justice Sachin Datta

[Read/Download order]