The Gauhati High Court has firmly upheld the constitutional validity of age restrictions for accessing Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services in India. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury dismissed a petition challenging Section 21(g) of the ART (Regulation) Act, 2021, stating the limits are grounded in medical science, ethical standards, and the welfare of both the mother and the unborn child.
The Legal Challenge and the Court's Rationale
The case was brought before the court by a married couple who were denied ART services by a hospital in 2024 because they exceeded the prescribed age limits. The petitioners argued that the law infringed upon their fundamental rights to reproductive autonomy and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
However, the court underscored that the legislation establishes a clear age framework: an upper limit of 50 years and a lower limit of 21 years for women, while for men, the limits are 55 years and 21 years, respectively. The bench observed that setting such boundaries is a matter of legislative policy aimed at ensuring safe and ethical practices.
"Section 21(g) prescribes an upper age limit based on considerations of medical science, ethical standards, and the welfare of both the woman undergoing treatment and the child to be born. These considerations fall squarely within the legislative domain," the court noted in its order.
Arguments from Both Sides
Advocate B K Gogoi, representing the petitioners, contended that a rigid age bar was arbitrary. He emphasized that it failed to account for individual medical fitness and disproportionately curtailed reproductive choice, which he argued is integral to the right to life. He also pointed out that the couple had begun fertility consultations in 2020, prior to the Act's enactment in 2021.
On behalf of the state, advocates D J Das and B Chakravarty defended the Act as a comprehensive regulatory framework. They submitted that the age limits are founded on scientific evidence concerning maternal health risks, fetal outcomes, and child welfare. They urged the court to accord deference to the legislature's policy judgment in such complex socio-medical matters.
Court's Final Verdict and Key Findings
The High Court, in its detailed ruling, held that the age-based classification under Section 21(g) applies uniformly and has a rational nexus with the Act's objectives of safe and ethical ART regulation. The court stated that the provision does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness and does not violate constitutional guarantees.
The bench also rejected the argument that commencing treatment before the law was passed created a vested right. "The law applicable on the date when eligibility is considered must govern access to the statutory benefits," the order clarified.
Ultimately, the court refused to grant individual exemptions, stating that doing so would mean substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy. "On a careful evaluation... we are of the considered view that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 withstands the constitutional scrutiny," the court concluded, thereby dismissing the petition.
