During the final arguments in a writ petition filed against actor Shah Rukh Khan regarding his surrogate baby AbRam, the actor on Thursday pleaded to the Bombay High Court to quash the petition against him. “The litigation is completely false, unsubstantiated and malicious. It isn't a public-spirited litigation, but a publicity-seeking litigation. It should be dismissed with cost,” Mr Khan's lawyer pleaded before Justice Revati Mohite-Dere. The court has reserved its order in the matter.
Social activist Varsha Deshpande had moved the court last year after the lower court had refused to entertain her complaint. She had alleged that Mr Khan and his wife had violated the PCPNDT (Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques) Act by conducting a sex determination test of their son AbRam before his birth. The lower court had quashed her complaint.
After that, she again pleaded to the authorities to give her documents related to the couple's baby boy. After the magistrate refused her application, she challenged it in the High Court. In the petition filed before the Bombay High Court, Ms Deshpande has sought all documents collected by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) regarding the surrogacy process before AbRam's birth.
The actor has opposed the move on the grounds that his right to privacy is violated by sharing the documents.
“The question is whether you are entitled to procure the documents as a matter of right,” the judge observed on Thursday while hearing the final arguments.
Mr Khan's lawyer Pranav Badheka pleaded that the provisions of law say that only an appropriate authority “may” procure documents. He said, “If the legal provision is interpreted as “shall”, it will make it unconstitutional, infringing on my right to privacy, which is a fundamental right.”
He said that the local body itself had filed an affidavit stating there was no evidence to take action against the couple and the hospital under the PCPNDT Act.
Ms Deshpande's lawyer Uday Warunjikar pleaded that the court should interfere to ensure that the “unholy alliance between the authorities (MCGM) and the wrong-doer is broken.” He said that the right to privacy of an individual cannot be greater than the larger interest of society.
After the local body submitted that it had not found anything untoward, the court reserved its order.
