Gauhati High Court Dismisses Plea Against ART Age Limits, Upholds Section 21(g) As Safeguard For Mother And Child Well-Being
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury has dismissed a writ petition by a married couple and upheld Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which fixes age limits for ART services. The couple moved the Court after an ART clinic declined to treat them as they were outside the eligibility bracket, contending that the age bar violated equality and liberty and ignored individual medical fitness. The Bench held that the criteria were set for the well-being of the mother and the child and declined to grant any exemption. Section 21(g) permits ART for women above 21 and below 50 and for men above 21 and below 55.
The petitioners, a married couple who said they were unable to conceive naturally, stated that they began medical consultations for an assisted reproductive procedure in 2020, but the process was disrupted during the COVID-19 period. They later underwent an assisted reproductive procedure at a hospital, which did not succeed.
On 13 March 2024, the couple approached an ART facility to obtain ART services. The facility declined to treat them on the ground that they did not satisfy the age-eligibility criteria set under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. They then filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) and sought access to ART services despite their ineligibility under that provision.
In support of the challenge, the petitioners contended that the upper age limit under Section 21(g) violated Articles 14 and 21 by restricting access to ART services despite individual medical fitness and by affecting reproductive autonomy. They also argued that an age-based exclusion did not account for individual medical assessment and that, since they had started treatment before the 2021 law, the later restriction should not apply to them.
The respondents maintained that the 2021 Act created a comprehensive regulatory framework for ART to address ethical, medical, and societal concerns, and that the age limits were based on scientific evidence relating to maternal health risks, fetal outcomes, and child welfare.
The Bench observed: “There can be no serious dispute that the right to make reproductive choices forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” It recorded quoting Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009) “the reproductive autonomy was recognised as an aspect of bodily integrity and decisional privacy. Yet, the Apex Court has consistently held that the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India does not render every personal choice immune from regulation. The Constitutional rights, particularly in the domain of social welfare and public health, operate within a framework of permissible regulation.”
It stated: “The impugned provision must, therefore, be assessed not on the touchstone of absolute autonomy but within the well-established limits of constitutional review of social legislation. 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 does not evaluate the wisdom of legislative choices but examines whether the choice made transgresses the constitutional boundaries. Fixation of the age limit has consistently been held to be a matter of policy. Such fixation can be said to be arbitrary when it is a case of “picked out from a hat”; in the present provision, the same is based on the well-being of the mother and child.”
On the approach to legislative validity, the Court recorded: “A statute enacted by the Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality. The burden of establishing unconstitutionality lies heavily upon the challenger. It is by now too well settled that the economic and the social welfare legislations are entitled to the judicial deference, particularly where the classification adopted has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”
On the Article 14 challenge, it stated: “The age-based classification under Section 21(g) applies uniformly to all intending couples. It is founded on an intelligible differential and bears a direct nexus to the regulation of ART services in a manner that is safe, ethical, and socially responsible. The provisions do not suffer from manifest arbitrariness and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Addressing the plea that treatment had begun before the 2021 law, the Bench recorded: “The submission that the petitioners had initiated the ART prior to the coming into force of the Act, 2021, does not create any vested right to continue such treatment contrary to the statutory prescription. The law applicable on the date when eligibility is considered must govern access to the statutory benefits, even if the earlier attempt failed prior to the enactment of the Act, 2021, and was not a continuing process.” It added: “To carve out, the individual exemptions on the grounds of hardship or medical fitness would amount to substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy. Such an exercise would traverse beyond the permissible limit of constitutional adjudication.”
Finally, the Court stated: “On a careful evaluation of the statutory scheme, the constitutional principle governing judicial review and the precedence holding the field, we are of the considered view that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 withstands the constitutional scrutiny and does not infringe Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“The writ petition is devoid of merit and, accordingly, stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. B. K. Gogoi, learned Adv.; Mr. N. D. Sarma.
For the Respondents: Dy.S.G.I.; Mr. D. J. Das; Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC.
Case Title: XXX Versus The Union of India and Ors
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:17579-DB
Case Number: WP(C)/2344/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
