Sanchayita Lahkar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal allowed a married couple’s plea for Assisted Reproductive Technology services and set aside a State Appellate Authority order that had refused them IVF. The couple approached the authorities after their only son died in 2024, but their request was declined citing the husband’s age, the wife’s menopause, perceived medical risks, and concerns about possible sex determination. The Court held that the ART Act, 2021 does not fix an age cap for a commissioning couple and permits treatment using donor oocytes and directed that the couple be allowed to undergo ART, including IVF.

Also Read: Unbelievable That Separate Residence Demand Would Drive Husband To Set Wife On Fire; Punjab & Haryana High Court Acquits Man In Murder Case After 22 Years

The wife was stated to be 47 years old and had attained menopause approximately four years earlier, rendering her unable to conceive naturally. The husband had crossed the age of 56 years. The couple had two children from their wedlock, of whom their son had expired in July 2024.

The petitioners approached a gynaecologist who opined that both were medically fit to undergo IVF treatment. However, ART services were refused on the ground that the husband had crossed the age of 55 years under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Following an earlier writ petition, the State Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter but rejected the claim, citing statutory age limits, non-permissibility of donor oocytes, health risks to the woman, and concerns relating to sex determination. The present petition challenged the legality of this rejection.

The Court first examined the objection relating to age restrictions under the ART Act and recorded that “there is no age restriction for a commissioning couple as defined under the ART Act.” It was observed that "Section 21 (g) of ART Act makes it mandatory for a clinic to extend ART services to a woman if she is above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years and to a man if he is above the age of 21 years and below the age of 55 years. This Court held that the statute reinforces age restriction on an individual gender and not to a couple."

With respect to reliance on earlier High Court decisions, the Court noted that “the contesting respondents have conceded that no appeal or SLP has been preferred against the aforesaid judgments till now.”

Addressing the rejection based on menopause and donor oocyte usage, the Court observed that “the statutory framework explicitly provides for gamete donors as well as oocyte donation.” It further recorded that “the primary purpose of the ART Act is to regulate and supervise the ART clinics and banks, so as to prevent their misuse and avoid unsafe and unethical practices.”

The Court stated that “the intent of the statute would stand defeated if the reasoning given by respondent No.2 is accepted,” and held that the rejection “violates the very spirit of the ART Act as well as the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.”

On the issue of medical risk, the Court referred to the affidavit of the treating doctor and recorded that “petitioner No.1 is a healthy woman and is fit to carry a pregnancy.” It was further noted that “the risks involved in undergoing an ART procedure and chances of genetic abnormality in the offspring are not an embargo from undergoing the procedure under the ART Act.”

Regarding the existence of a living child, the Court observed that “there is no bar in the ART Act for a couple to opt for IVF, when they have one living child.” The Court concluded that “all the grounds given in the impugned order are not tenable and are turned down.”

Also Read: Handwriting Expert Opinion For Will Not Needed If Signatures Not Disputed: Supreme Court

The Court directed that “the impugned order, Annexure P-8, cannot be sustained and is set aside. The petitioners are permitted to undergo ART services, including IVF treatment, for the purposes of conception of human embryo and its implantation in petitioner No.1.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of in these terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate; Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab; Mr. Amanjot Singh Sidhu, Advocate; Mr. Gurjeet Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Sarbjit Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:005875
Case Number: CWP-6818-2025
Bench: Justice Suvir Sehgal