The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed that the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides a rigid application of statutory age limits for assisted reproductive technology when one spouse is medically eligible and the denial stems solely from the other’s marginal age excess. This judgment establishes a critical precedent for individualized assessment in ART cases, particularly where emotional trauma and medical fitness align with constitutional protections.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Neeru Singh (wife, aged 49) and Lavakesh Pratap Singh Baghel (husband, aged 55), are a legally wedded couple seeking permission to undergo In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment at the Indira IVF Fertility Centre, Bilaspur. Their request was denied because the husband had crossed the upper age limit of 55 years prescribed under Section 21(g)(ii) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021. The wife, however, remains within the permissible age limit of 50 years under Section 21(g)(i) and has been medically cleared for the procedure.
Key Facts
- The petitioners were blessed with a daughter, who passed away in 2022, causing severe emotional and psychological trauma.
- Following a period of grief and recovery, the couple sought ART services in early 2026.
- Medical evaluation at Indira IVF Centre confirmed both petitioners are physically and clinically fit for IVF.
- The clinic refused to proceed solely on the basis of the husband’s age exceeding 55 years as of February 2026.
- The petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 24.03.2026 requesting relaxation of the age bar, which was rejected without consideration of their exceptional circumstances.
- The delay in seeking treatment was attributable entirely to the loss of their child, not negligence or deliberate postponement.
- The petitioners are financially stable and capable of raising a child.
Procedural History
- Early 2026: Petitioners approached Indira IVF Centre for consultation and medical evaluation.
- February 2026: Petitioner No. 2 (husband) turned 55 years old, triggering statutory disqualification under Section 21(g)(ii).
- 24.03.2026: Formal written request for relaxation of age limit submitted to Director, Indira IVF Centre.
- April 2026: Clinic declined request citing statutory compliance.
- 15.04.2026: Writ Petition (WPC No. 1495 of 2026) filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
- 22.04.2026: Case reserved for orders.
- 24.04.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that eligibility for ART must be assessed individually, not as a couple. Relied on constitutional rights to reproductive autonomy under Article 21, the individual-centric language of the Act, and judicial precedents from Kerala, Punjab & Haryana, Calcutta, and Delhi High Courts. Emphasized that the wife satisfies all statutory and medical criteria and that denial constitutes arbitrary discrimination under Article 14.
Respondents (State and Clinic): Contended that Section 21(g) imposes mandatory, non-negotiable age limits for both spouses. Asserted that the clinic, as a regulated entity, cannot deviate from statutory provisions without exposing itself to penalties under Sections 33(2), 34, and 37 of the Act. Argued that judicial relaxation would amount to legislating from the bench and undermine the statutory framework.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Direction to permit IVF treatment despite the husband’s age exceeding 55 years.
- Explicit exception to Section 21(g) for their case.
- Assurance that no administrative or regulatory hurdles would impede ongoing treatment cycles.
- Protection for the clinic from penal consequences for complying with the Court’s order.
- Continuation of treatment even if the wife turns 50 during the process.
The Legal Issue
Can a woman who is medically fit and within the statutory age limit of 50 years under Section 21(g)(i) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, be denied IVF treatment solely because her husband has marginally exceeded the 55-year age limit for men, when the Act does not prescribe a composite age criterion for couples?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the individual-centric structure of the Act, citing Sections 2(1)(n) and 2(1)(u), which define "patients" and "woman" as independent legal entities. They argued that the Act’s purpose is to facilitate access to ART, not to impose blanket restrictions. The refusal, they contended, violates the right to reproductive autonomy recognized in Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, and X1 v. State (NCT of Delhi). They emphasized that the husband’s role is limited to consent under Form 8 and that his age has no biological bearing on the procedure. The delay in seeking treatment was due to grief, not negligence, and denying relief would permanently deprive them of biological parenthood.
For the Respondent
The State and clinic argued that Section 21(g) is unambiguous and mandatory. They contended that the Act was enacted after legislative deliberation on medical, ethical, and social grounds, and judicial intervention would amount to rewriting the law. They cited statutory liability under Sections 33(2), 34, and 37 for non-compliance and asserted that clinics lack discretionary power to waive age limits. They also pointed to conflicting judicial interpretations across High Courts as a reason to uphold the statutory bar.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a purposive interpretation of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, emphasizing that its object is to regulate and facilitate ethical access to ART, not to create arbitrary barriers. The Court noted that the Act prescribes separate age limits for women and men, with no provision for a combined or joint age criterion for a "commissioning couple." This distinction, the Court held, reflects an individual-centric approach.
"The provision reinforces that the age restriction is gender-specific rather than couple-specific, reinforcing that eligibility depends on the individual's age rather than the couple's combined age."
The Court examined multiple High Court judgments, including Sajitha Abdul Nazar v. Union of India (Kerala), Sarbjit Kaur v. State of Punjab (Punjab & Haryana), and Shyamoli Saha v. State of West Bengal (Calcutta), all of which held that a woman’s eligibility cannot be negated due to her husband’s age. The Court found these precedents persuasive and aligned with constitutional principles.
The Court further anchored its reasoning in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on reproductive autonomy. In Suchita Srivastava, the Court recognized reproductive choice as part of personal liberty under Article 21. In X1 v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court expanded this to include the right to access reproductive healthcare free from coercion. The Court held that denying treatment in this case - where the wife is eligible, medically fit, and grieving the loss of her only child - constitutes a disproportionate infringement on her fundamental rights.
The Court rejected the clinic’s fear of statutory liability, clarifying that compliance with a judicial order cannot be grounds for penal action. It emphasized that the Act does not prohibit judicial intervention in exceptional cases, and where constitutional rights are at stake, statutory provisions must yield to reason and equity.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Chhattisgarh High Court directed the respondents, particularly Indira IVF Fertility Centre and its Director, to permit and proceed with the IVF treatment of the petitioners, notwithstanding the age bar under Section 21(g)(ii) of the Act. The Court explicitly allowed continuation of treatment even if Petitioner No. 1 (the wife) turns 50 during the process. The clinic is protected from any penal or regulatory action under the Act for acting in compliance with this order. The entire process must be completed expeditiously, subject to medical advisability and other statutory requirements.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Individual Eligibility Trumps Couple-Based Restrictions
- Practitioners may now argue that eligibility for ART under the 2021 Act must be assessed on an individual basis, particularly for women.
- A husband’s age exceeding 55 years cannot be used to deny treatment to a wife under 50 who is medically fit.
- Clinics must cease applying rigid couple-centric interpretations where the statute is silent on joint criteria.
Exceptional Circumstances Justify Judicial Relaxation
- Grief, trauma, or delayed access due to unforeseen personal loss can be valid grounds for seeking judicial relief.
- Courts are likely to view such cases as exceptional, warranting protection of reproductive autonomy under Article 21.
- Delay in seeking treatment, if attributable to trauma and not negligence, will not be held against petitioners.
Clinics Must Seek Judicial Clarity Before Refusing Treatment
- Regulated clinics may refuse treatment only if the law is unambiguous and compliance is mandatory.
- Where constitutional rights are implicated and judicial precedents exist, clinics should not act unilaterally but may seek court guidance.
- Courts will now shield clinics from liability when acting in compliance with judicial orders permitting ART despite statutory age limits.
No Retrospective Application of Age Limits
- Although not directly at issue here, the judgment reinforces the principle from Vijaya Kumari S. v. Union of India and D v. Union of India that age limits cannot be applied retroactively to halt ongoing procedures.
- Couples who began ART processes before the Act’s enforcement or during its transitional phase may have stronger claims for continuation.
The Burden of Justification Shifts to the State
- The State must now demonstrate a compelling reason for denying ART to an eligible individual.
- Generic concerns about medical risk or ethical policy cannot override individual rights absent specific statutory language.
