01Facts
The High Court heard six petitions together because they raised common questions of law on similar facts.
¶ 1In that petition, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus permitting petitioner no. 1 to continue and complete ART/IVF treatment and undergo embryo transfer from among four embryos said to have been lawfully created and cryopreserved at a facility; the judgment text supplied ends before identifying the facility or setting out the remaining facts.
¶ 2The petitions were reserved on 15 September 2026 and pronounced on 5 November 2026.
p. 202Issues
i.Whether petitioner no. 1 could be permitted to continue and complete ART/IVF treatment and undergo embryo transfer from among the four cryopreserved embryos.
¶ 2ii.Whether the connected petitioners were entitled to relief on the common questions of law arising from similar facts.
¶ 103Law Applied
The supplied judgment text does not include the court’s discussion of applicable statutes, legal principles, or precedents.
Accordingly, no rule of law can be reliably identified from the available text.
04Reasoning
The available text states the common-question basis for hearing the petitions together and records the relief sought in the lead petition.
¶ 1–2It does not include the court’s legal reasoning or its application of any law to the facts; that analysis cannot be summarized from the supplied material.
05Holding
The supplied text does not include the operative order or the court’s final holding.
It is therefore not possible to determine whether the petitions were allowed, dismissed, or otherwise disposed of.
Original Court PDF
Savita And AnothervsState Of Haryana And Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
