The law relating to surrogacy

The recently passed Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill,2016 aims at banning commercial surrogacy and allows one altruistic surrogacy for married couples.
The Bill bans commercial surrogacy as well as bars single parents, foreigners, live in partners, married couples with biological or adopted children as well as homosexuals from opting for surrogacy. Only married couples who do not have any children and have been married for more than 5 years can opt for surrogacy. Homosexuals and live in partners have been denied the right to have children by surrogacy. Foreigners, NRIs and PIOs having OCI card have also been barred from opting for surrogacy on the ground that 'divorces are very common in foreign countries'.
The Bill further states that the surrogate can only be a close relative of the couple. She cannot be paid. She has to be a married woman with at least one child of her own. Childless and unmarried women cannot be surrogates. A woman can be a surrogate only once in her life. If a couple does not have a close relative they cannot opt for surrogacy.
The Bill requires surrogacy clinics to be registered and they can charge for their services. Commercial surrogacy, abandoning the surrogate child or exploitation of surrogate mother and import or selling of human embryos have been deemed as violations punishable with a jail term of at least 10 years and a fine up to Rs 10 lakhs. Clinics are required to maintain records of surrogacy for 25 years.

Homosexuality under Indian law

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code deals with unnatural sexual offences. Section 377 states: Whoever voluntarily has carnal inter­course against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with impris­onment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.
Section 377 was introduced during the British rule in India and it criminalizes all forms of homosexual relations which are considered to be 'against the order of nature'. Infringing the right of privacy, the section criminalizes the consensual relationship and treats a person with a different sexual orientation as an offender. The section further clubs together homosexuality with bestiality. 
In the case of Naz Foundation vs Government of NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court in 2009, declared the part of the section dealing with consensual homosexual relations as unconstitutional and decriminalized homosexuality. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 2013 and criminalized homosexuality again and said it is unto the legislature to decide about the matter. The act of criminalizing homosexuality goes against the constitutional principles of equality before law and non-discrimination. The Supreme Court also did not consider the fact that criminalizing homosexuality infringes the right of privacy of consenting adults. Since then, the Lok Sabha has voted against the private member's bill to decriminalize homosexuality.
Often the objection raised against the rights of the LGBT community stem with claims that homosexuality leads to pedophilia, which are baseless. The rights of homosexuals concern with the basic human rights of the people with a different sexual preference. The issue is of decriminalizing the sexual act between consenting adults and not the acts of pedophilia. Decriminalizing homosexuality does not decriminalize pedophilia. The protection of children from sexual offenses is important and a distinct issue, however, criminalizing homosexual relations between consenting adults is discriminative and violative of the principles of equality and infringe upon their privacy.