Egg Donation Trafficking in India - Regulatory Gaps and the Need for Stronger Enforcement

Context:

• The alleged rescue of 43 women from an egg-donation trafficking network in Hyderabad has exposed serious gaps in the regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in India.
• The women, recruited from different States, were reportedly promised ₹20,000–30,000 per donation cycle. The accused were allegedly linked to 23 IVF centres.
• Similar incidents in Erode (2022) and Varanasi (2023), involving the alleged forced donation of eggs by minors, highlight the exploitation of economically vulnerable women, the role of brokers, document falsification and inadequate oversight of fertility clinics.

Legal Framework Governing Egg Donation in India:

• The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 provides safeguards to prevent exploitation and regulate egg donation.
• Key provisions -
  • Section 27: Only registered ART banks are authorised to screen and register donors and supply gametes to ART clinics.
  • Section 21(b): ART clinics must obtain gametes exclusively from registered ART banks.
  • Eligibility criteria: A woman can donate eggs only once in her lifetime, between the ages of 23 and 35 years.
  • Limit on retrieval: A maximum of seven oocytes (eggs) can be retrieved from a donor in one cycle.
  • Section 33: Prohibits medical practitioners from using intermediaries to procure donors.
  • Penal provisions: The first offence attracts a fine of ₹5–10 lakh, while subsequent offences can result in imprisonment of 3–8 years and a fine of ₹10–20 lakh.
• These provisions aim to prevent commercial exploitation, repeated egg retrieval and the involvement of unauthorised agents.

Structural Weaknesses due to which Egg Donation Trafficking Persist:

• Demand-supply imbalance:
  • Rising demand for donor eggs in fertility treatment, coupled with a limited pool of legally eligible donors, may encourage illegal recruitment.
  • Brokers exploit economically vulnerable women by offering financial incentives and concealing the medical risks involved.
• Role of brokers and document fraud:
  • Intermediaries recruit women across State boundaries, often through coercion, deception or financial inducements.
  • Falsification of identity and age-related documents enables minors and otherwise ineligible women to enter the ART system.
• Inadequate institutional oversight:
  • The National ART and Surrogacy Registry listed 4,726 registered clinics and 940 ART banks (as of October 31), significantly below the academic estimate of approximately 40,000 clinics.
  • The discrepancy raises concerns about unregistered facilities, regulatory coverage and the actual scale of the ART sector.

Weak Enforcement and Lack of Transparency:

• Inadequate regulatory data:
  • The Department of Health Research's (DHR) Annual Report 2025–26 provides information on forms downloaded from the National Registry portal and permissions granted.
  • However, it does not adequately disclose the number of regulatory inspections conducted, violations detected and penalties imposed, etc.
• Non-functional or underdeveloped registry mechanism:
  • ART banks are required to maintain donor records and update the National Registry.
  • An effective registry should identify previous donors and prevent repeat egg retrieval.
  • However, the system for collecting donor information from clinics and banks has only been piloted.
  • Lack of transparency regarding data verification and regular updates weakens safeguards against repeat donations, as illustrated by the Erode case.
• Weak accountability of regulatory boards:
  • Under Section 35, courts can take cognisance of offences under the Act only on complaints filed by the National or State Boards or their authorised officers.
  • Rule 5 of the ART Rules, 2022, requires these Boards to submit annual reports to the government.
  • The absence of the National Board's report in the DHR annual report raises concerns about institutional accountability and transparency.

Protecting Victims and Ensuring Medical Accountability:

• Women recruited through illegal networks should primarily be treated as victims and witnesses rather than accused persons.
• Essential safeguards include:
  • Independent medical care: Comprehensive health assessments and monitoring for complications arising from hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval.
  • Health insurance: Section 22(1)(b) mandates 12 months of health insurance coverage for egg donors.
  • Legal protection: Victims must be protected from intimidation, coercion and further exploitation.
  • Informed consent: Donors must be adequately informed about medical risks and procedures.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen inspections: Conduct regular and surprise inspections of ART clinics and banks, including verification of donor registers and consent documents.
• Operationalise the National Registry: Establish real-time donor-record updating, identity verification and safeguards against repeat donations.
• Improve transparency: The Union Health Ministry should publish annual reports of the National and State Boards, while States should disclose inspections, violations, suspensions and prosecutions.
• Fix institutional accountability: Take strict action against clinics and medical practitioners facilitating illegal recruitment, rather than targeting only intermediaries.
• Inter-State coordination: Strengthen information-sharing between police forces, health regulators and ART authorities to dismantle trafficking networks.

Conclusion:

• India's challenge is not the absence of legislation but the gap between legal safeguards and their implementation.
• Egg donation must remain a regulated medical procedure based on informed consent, donor safety and ethical medical practices.