Court Rules Separate Gender-Specific Age Limits in ART Act, 2021; Denial of IVF to Wife Within Age Limit Solely Due to Husband's Age Is Unconstitutional
In a landmark judgment delivered on October 6, 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court, presided over by Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, has set aside the rejection of a legally wedded couple's request for In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 ("ART Act"). The petitioners, Archana Tiwari and her husband, had been denied IVF treatment solely on the ground that the husband had crossed the upper age limit prescribed for men under Section 21(g)(ii) of the ART Act, despite the wife being within the statutory age limit and medically fit for the procedure.
The couple, married for over 22 years without a surviving child, approached an ART clinic for IVF treatment after unsuccessful attempts through other medical methods. The wife, aged 47, met the statutory age criterion for women (between 21 and 50 years), but the husband, aged 57, exceeded the prescribed age limit for men (between 21 and 55 years). The clinic recommended treatment subject to permission from the competent authority, which was subsequently denied based solely on the husband's age.
The Court examined the statutory framework of the ART Act, particularly Section 21(g), which explicitly prescribes separate and gender-specific age limits for men and women seeking ART services. It observed that the Act does not provide for a composite or cumulative age restriction applicable jointly to a commissioning couple. The Court drew support from the statutory definitions of "patients" and "commissioning couple," which recognize the eligibility of individuals separately rather than collectively.
The Court held that treating the crossing of the prescribed age limit by one spouse as automatically disqualifying the other spouse, who independently meets the statutory conditions, is a rigid and mechanical interpretation that is not supported by the language of the statute. Such an approach unjustifiably infringes upon the right to reproductive autonomy, which the Supreme Court of India has recognized as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The judgment referred to a host of precedents, including landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), and recent High Court rulings from various jurisdictions that emphasize reproductive autonomy and reject overly restrictive interpretations of age limits under the ART Act.
The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the respondent authorities and the ART clinic to permit the couple to proceed with IVF treatment, subject to compliance with all medical, ethical, and regulatory safeguards. Notably, the Court also ruled that if the wife crosses the age of 50 during the ongoing treatment cycle, this shall not by itself mandate discontinuation of the treatment, provided it remains medically advisable.
The Court underscored that the relief granted is confined to the facts of the present case and does not dispense with any other mandatory requirements under the ART Act or related regulations.
This judgment is a significant affirmation of reproductive rights and personal autonomy, emphasizing that legislative provisions must be interpreted harmoniously with constitutional values. It reiterates that laws regulating assisted reproductive technologies should not unduly restrict individuals' opportunities to pursue parenthood, especially where medical suitability and statutory criteria are independently met.
Bottom Line:
Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, Section 21(g) prescribes separate gender-specific age limits for woman and man and does not create a composite age bar for a commissioning couple - Wife within statutory age limit and medically fit for IVF/ART cannot be denied treatment solely because husband has crossed prescribed age limit - Reproductive autonomy is part of Article 21.
Statutory provision(s):
Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 Section 21(g); Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21
Archana Tiwari v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2991953
