Introduction
The Gauhati High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the age‑based eligibility criteria under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”). The judgment reinforces the legislature’s power to set age limits for assisted reproductive services and emphasizes that these limits serve public health and welfare objectives. The court dismissed a challenge by a married couple who sought to avail ART services despite being beyond the prescribed age limits, holding that the law does not violate fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Facts of the Case
In the petition before the court, a married couple approached the Gauhati High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming that Section 21(g) of the ART Act was unconstitutional. The provision restricts eligibility for ART services by setting upper age limits: women must be above 21 and below 50 years, and men must be above 21 and below 55 years to receive ART treatment.
The petitioners argued that these age restrictions arbitrarily curtailed their reproductive autonomy and infringed their rights under Articles 14 (right to equality) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). They contended that their personal choice to seek fertility treatment should not be limited by an age ceiling, particularly in light of advancements in medical science and individual medical fitness.
The couple also pointed out that they had already begun fertility efforts before the ART Act came into force, asserting that the retrospective imposition of age limits was unfair and punitive. They sought either a declaration that Section 21(g) was ultra vires the Constitution or a direction allowing them to continue treatment irrespective of age.
What the Court Says
The division bench, led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, dismissed the petition and upheld the validity of Section 21(g). The court acknowledged that reproductive choice is part of personal liberty but clarified that this right operates within a framework of reasonable legislative regulation aimed at protecting public health, especially the welfare of the mother and the child.
The court reaffirmed that Parliament enjoys wide latitude in formulating policy, and age limits are a matter of legislative policy rather than judicial determination. The judges held that the age criteria have a rational nexus to the object of regulating assisted reproductive services in a safe, ethical, and socially responsible manner. According to the court, the age limits are grounded in medical science and ethical standards and aim to balance individual aspirations with broader societal interests.
Addressing the petitioners’ reliance on personal medical circumstances, the court stated that individual hardships cannot override legislative policy. Granting exemptions on grounds such as medical fitness or personal difficulty would amount to judicial policy making, which the court said exceeds the limits of constitutional review.
The bench also clarified that eligibility for ART services is determined as per the law in force on the date the services are sought. Earlier attempts at fertility treatment before the enactment of the ART Act do not create a vested right to continue services once the new legal regime applies.
The court found no violation of Article 14, noting that the age‑based classification applies uniformly to all intending couples and bears a clear, intelligible difference rooted in the objectives of the Act. It similarly concluded that Section 21(g) does not violate Article 21 because the regulation serves to protect maternal and child health, which are legitimate state interests.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling reinforces the legislative authority to regulate assisted reproductive technologies in India. By upholding Section 21(g), the Gauhati High Court has validated the government’s policy to set upper age thresholds for accessing ART services, aligning legal standards with medical and ethical considerations.
The judgment signals that courts are likely to defer to Parliament on policy choices involving health, ethics, and welfare, provided the legislature’s classification has a rational basis and does not arbitrarily discriminate. The court’s emphasis on the well‑being of the mother and the child reflects a broader judicial acceptance of regulatory limits in reproductive law.
For couples seeking reproductive assistance, the decision underscores the importance of complying with statutory eligibility criteria. It also highlights that personal circumstances and ongoing treatment begun before the law’s enactment do not exempt applicants from current legal requirements.
