“He was so full of life,” Kaur recalled. “The doctors said the chemotherapy might affect his fertility, and he wanted to make sure he could still have a family one day.
“We were all hopeful, thinking we’d be planning his wedding once he got better. He had a girlfriend, and they were in love ... everything seemed possible back then.”
However, Preet Inder’s health deteriorated and he died three months after his sperm was put in storage.
“When we lost him, our world shattered,” his mother said. “But we remembered his wish, his hope to have a family.
“That thought gave us the strength to approach the hospital for his sperm, thinking we could honour his legacy by having a grandchild.”
‘Our pain pushed us on’
Ganga Ram Hospital refused to release the sperm, forcing the grieving parents to turn to the courts.
“We were heartbroken all over again when the hospital said no,” Kaur said. “But it was our loneliness, our pain that pushed us to keep fighting.
“We thought if he had gone through the effort to preserve it, why couldn’t we? If his semen hadn’t been preserved, we wouldn’t have had this glimmer of hope.”
Their legal journey culminated last week when Justice Prathiba Singh ruled in their favour, declaring them the rightful heirs to their son’s sperm.
In her order, the judge said: “Under the prevailing Indian law, there is no prohibition against posthumous reproduction if the consent of the sperm owner or egg owner can be demonstrated.”
The court said that the sample must not be used for any commercial purpose, but the parents were entitled to pursue surrogacy.
Reflecting on the ruling, Kaur said: “He loved his sisters, and they loved him. He was the centre of our family.
“I look at his face every morning. That’s how I start my day. He may be gone, but he’s still with us.”
Relative will carry child
The family is now exploring surrogacy, and a relative has volunteered to carry the child. “We want to keep it in the family,” Kaur said. “It’s not about replacing our son but continuing his legacy. It’s about honouring his dreams.”
Surrogacy in India has been restricted since a 2021 Act which banned commercial surrogacy but allowed altruistic surrogacy. The family intends to proceed in full compliance with the law.
“This judgment has given us life again,” Kaur said. “It’s not something everyone can afford, but for those who can, it offers a way forward after such immense loss.”
The family’s lawyer, Suruchi Aggarwal, called the judgment groundbreaking and said it was a complex case.
“This case dealt with whether semen could be classified as property, whether it’s heritable, and if the parents could inherit it,” Aggarwal said.
“In many jurisdictions around the world, such as New South Wales and England, human tissues can be transferred to next of kin. India lacks specific laws on this issue, so we had to rely on precedents from other countries.”
‘We can keep a part of him alive’
Aggarwal cited international cases in which courts allowed parents to use their deceased children’s sperm, including a 2019 New York Supreme Court case in which a military cadet’s parents were permitted to have a grandchild using their son’s preserved sperm.
“Posthumous reproduction is a growing area of legal interest globally,” she said.
“While Indian laws are evolving, this case sets a significant precedent for others in similar circumstances. The court recognised that there is a human element to this – a family’s right to continue to honour a loved one’s memory.”
Kaur and her husband are now looking to the future. “We’ve lost so much,” she said. “But with this judgment, we’ve gained a second chance at something beautiful – at keeping a part of our son alive.”
