Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Pinki vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 August, 2025
M.A.No. 729/2025
ITEM NO.3 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Miscellaneous Application No. 729/2025 in Crl.A. No. 1927/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-04-2025
in Crl.A. No. 1927/2025 passed by the Supreme Court of India]
PINKI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
[TO BE TAKEN UP AT THE TOP OF THE BOARD]
WITH
Diary No(s). 20521/2025 (II)
IA No. 98701/2025 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
Date : 18-08-2025 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) :By Courts Motion, AOR
Ms. Aparna Bhat Amicus Curiae, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mayank Sapra, AOR
Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv.
Ms. Lalima Das, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Krishna, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra,Adv
Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR
Mrs. Pooja Kabra, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Agnihotri, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, AOR
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.08.21
10:32:30 IST
Reason: Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
1
M.A.No. 729/2025
Mr. Shantanu Verma, Adv.
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary Rathi, Adv.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The State of NCT Delhi has filed compliance affidavit/status
report duly affirmed by DCP, Dwarka District, New Delhi.
2. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, the learned ASG appearing for the
State of NCT Delhi took us cursorily through the status report.
3. One copy of the status report has been served and furnished to
Ms. Aparna Bhat, the learned Amicus.
4. After studying the status report, Ms. Bhat has expressed the
following concerns which according to her have not been addressed
in the affidavit:-
“CONCERNS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE AFFIDAVIT
1. The Union has failed to comply to the direction
passed by the Hon’ble Court in paragraph 5 of the
order dated 11.08.2025, thereby directing them to
inform the Hon’ble Court about the steps taken to
curb the rampant issue of child- trafficking in
Delhi.
2. The Status Report filed on behalf of the State of NCT
of Delhi on 14.08.2025 refers to 4 FIRs; FIR No.
178/2025 (PS Uttam Nagar, Dwarka) in paragraph A at
internal pg 2, FIR No. 106/2024 in paragraph B at
internal pg 3, FIR No. 54/2017 (PS Jama Masjid) in the
1st paragraph at internal pg 21, and FIR No. 210/2018
(PS Crime Branch). It appears from the narrative that
there are some common accused in these FIRs and the
nature of offences are similar. However, there are no
details provided about the status of the earlier FIRs
which are of 2017 and 2018. There is no information2
M.A.No. 729/2025about the children rescued, status of investigation,
stage of trial or any other details. Since the Police
are stating that there are some overlapping issues
amongst these FIRs, it is imperative that they be
directed to place on record:
a) FIRs. Charge sheets, details of the trials if any;
3. The number of children/infants trafficked and/or
subsequently recovered have been ambiguously mentioned
in the Status Report. It is not possible to comprehend
how many children are supposedly trafficked.
a) Paragraph A at pg 2 refers to a five day old infant;
b) Paragraph D at pg 4 refers to 3-4 children;
c) Paragraph E at pg 5 refers to 2 children;
d) At various places there are references to “trafficking
of children” with no numbers;
4. Paragraph D at page 4 of the Status Report mentions that
the accused, “Saroj and Jyoti were also arrested on
18.4.2025 and they revealed that they used to donate
eggs at IVF centers”
Pooja “was an egg donor, where she came in contact with
Saroj, Jyoti, Komal and Bimla…”.
The Status Report does not mention about the place and
mode of operation of the accused as egg donors. There is
no reference to the IVF centres, its role in engaging
with these accused, is there any involvement of the IVF
centre, are professionals engaged in the IVF process
involved in trafficking of children.
5. It is therefore prayed that the Delhi police be
directed to furnish the above details to enable this
Hon’ble Court to pass orders to protect the children
and the sanctity of child birth.”
5. We are further informed by Ms.Archana Pathak Dave, the learned
ASG that appropriate steps are being taken for filing an
application to get the bails cancelled of the two accused persons
involved in child trafficking.
6. It is for the State of NCT Delhi now to act promptly, having
regard to the serious nature of the crime.
3
M.A.No. 729/2025
7. So far as the aspect of cancellation of bail is concerned, we
should not express any opinion at this stage. It is for the court
concerned to look into and take an appropriate decision.
8. Ms. Aparna Bhat, the learned Amicus has submitted one another
document i.e. additional note, which reads thus:-
“ADDITIONAL NOTE FILED ON BEHALF OF MS. APARNA BHAT, Ld.
AMICUS CURIAEIn continuation of the note submitted earlier, the
following is being submitted on behalf of the Amicus.
I. Possible Violation of the Assisted Reproductive
Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021
1. Compliance Affidavit dated 14.08.2025 indicates that
accused Saroj, Jyoti and Pooja were allegedly “egg
donors”. It is unclear if the protocol under Section 27
of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act,
2021 was followed and if any offence under the Act was
committed. It would not be out of place to mention that
based on the limited information that emanates from the
Compliance Affidavit dated 14.08.2025, there is potential
violation of Section 33 of the Assisted Reproductive
Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which will have to be
investigated and can only be looked into if and when the
FIR and/or chargesheet in FIR No. 178/2025 P.S. Uttam
Nagar, Delhi is placed before this Hon’ble Court.
2. For the sake of ready reference by this Hon’ble
Court, the relevant sections of the Assisted Reproductive
Technology Act, 2021 are being reproduced as follows :
Sourcing of gametes by assisted reproductive technology banks.
27. (1) The screening of gamete donors, the collection,
screening and storage of semen; and provision of oocyte
donor, shall be done only by a bank registered as an
independent entity under the provisions of this Act.
(2) The banks shall—
(a) obtain semen from males between twenty-one years of
age and fifty-five years of age, both inclusive;
(b) obtain oocytes from females between twenty-three
years of age and thirty-five years of age; and
(c) examine the donors for such diseases, as may be
prescribed.
4
M.A.No. 729/2025
(3) A bank shall not supply the sperm or oocyte of a single
donor to more than one commissioning couple.
(4) An oocyte donor shall donate oocytes only once in her
life and not more than seven oocyte shall be retrieved
from the oocyte donor.
(5) All unused oocytes shall be preserved by the banks
for use on the same recipient, or given for research to
an organisation registered under this Act after seeking
written consent from the commissioning couple.
(6) A bank shall obtain all necessary information in
respect of a sperm or oocyte donor, including the name,
Aadhaar number as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of
the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other
Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, address and
any other details of such donor, in such manner as may be
prescribed, and shall undertake in writing from such
donor about the confidentiality of such information.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the
expressions—
(i) “retrieval” means a procedure of removing
oocytes from the ovaries of a woman;
(ii) “screening” means the genetic test performed on
embryos produced through in-vitro fertilisation.
Offences and penalties
33. (1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered
medical practitioner or any person shall not—
(a) abandon, disown or exploit or cause to be
abandoned, disowned or exploited in any form the
child or children born through assisted reproductive
technology;
(b) sell human embryos or gametes, run an agency, a
racket or an organisation for selling, purchasing or
trading in human embryos or gametes;
(c) import or help in getting imported in whatsoever
manner, the human embryos or human gametes;
(d) exploit the commissioning couple, woman or the
gamete donor in any form;
(e) transfer human embryo into a male person or an
animal;
(f) sell any human embryo or gamete for the purpose
of research; or
g) use any intermediates to obtain gamete donors or
purchase gamete donors.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of clauses (a) to
(g) of sub-section (1), shall be punishable with a fine
which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but may
extend to ten lakh rupees for the first contravention and
5
M.A.No. 729/2025
for subsequent contravention, shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three
years but may extend to eight years and with fine which
shall not be less than ten lakh rupees but may extend to
twenty lakh rupees.
(Emphasis supplied)
3. Surprisingly, the name of the IVF Centre/ Nursing Home/
Hospital, where such donation was taking place is
conspicuous by its absence. It would not be out of place
to mention that complex procedures such as egg donation
certainly require trained medical professionals and cannot
be conducted without due medical care. The Compliance
Affidavit also appears to be silent on possible
involvement of any medical professionals. It can further
not be discerned as to whether any investigation was done
in this regard.
II. MULTIPLE FIRs FOR SIMILAR OFFENCES AND CERTAIN COMMON ACCUSED
4. As per the compliance affidavit, there are four FIRs
under which investigation is being carried out, all registered
under different jurisdictions.
a. FIR No. 54/2017, PS Jama Masjid, Delhi;
b. FIR 210/2018, PS Crime Branch, Delhi;
c. FIR 106/ 2024, CBI;
d. FIR 178/2025, PS Uttamnagar, Delhi.
5. All cases seem to be of human trafficking as the
affidavit is stating that “similar offences” were
committed. It is unclear as to why one case is being
investigated by CBI, one by crime branch of Delhi Police
and two by local police. There seems to be no involvement
of Anti-human trafficking units. Given the fact that the
compliance affidavit is stating that there are some
common accused and that the nature of the offences are
similar, in the interest of justice and in the interest
of children, it is critical that all these are
investigated together and tried together.
6. The common accused as per the compliance affidavit are:
Name of the FIR details Remarks
Accused
Anjali FIR No. 106/2024 Pursuant to her being
CBI (released on released on bail in
bail in March March, 2025 in FIR
2025) No. 106/2024, the
accused Anjali has
FIR No. 178/2025 continued to engage
(PS Uttam Nagar in child trafficking.
Delhi) She was
6
M.A.No. 729/2025
(bail dismissed on again arrested on
04.08.2025) 08.04.2025 in FIR No.
178/2025
Jyoti FIR No. 210/2018 As per the compliance
(PS Crime Branch) affidavit of the
GNCTD, she was
FIR No. 178/2025 arrested on
(PS Uttam Nagar 18.04.2025 in FIR No.
Delhi) 178/2025.
(bail dismissed on
01.08.2025)
Saroj FIR No. 54/2017 There is no
(PS Jama Masjid) – information about the
She was arrested status of this
and subsequently accused.
released on bail
FIR No. 178/2025
(PS Uttam Nagar
Delhi)
It is most respectfully prayed before this Hon’ble Court
that the Delhi Police be directed to file a fresh
compliance affidavit, which shall take into account the
aforementioned issues.”
9. However, we request the learned ASG to look into the concerns
which have been expressed by Ms. Bhat, the learned Amicus today and
by next date of hearing file an additional report in that regard.
10. Post this matter on 08-09-2025 on top of the Board.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
7