DATE: 18/12/2025
COURT: High Court of Guahati
BENCH: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury
FACTS:
The petitioners, a married couple, have
been unable to conceive naturally and began medical consultations for Assisted
Reproductive Technology (ART) services in 2020. Their treatment was interrupted
by the COVID-19 pandemic, after which they underwent an unsuccessful ART
procedure at Pratiksha Hospital. On March 13, 2024, they approached Indira IVF
Hospital for further ART services but were denied treatment because they did
not meet the age-eligibility criteria under Section 21(g) of the Assisted
Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which limits ART access to
women aged 21-50 and men aged 21-55.
The petitioners challenged the
constitutional validity of this provision under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, arguing that the rigid upper age limit violates their fundamental
rights under Articles 14 and 21 by ignoring individual medical fitness and
denying reproductive autonomy. They also contended that since they had
initiated treatment before the Act's enactment, the restriction should not apply
to them. The respondents defended the Act as a regulatory framework addressing
ethical, medical, and societal concerns, with age limits based on scientific
evidence for maternal health, fetal outcomes, and child welfare.
ISSUES:
The primary issue in this case was the
constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive
Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which imposes upper age limits for accessing
ART services (50 for women and 55 for men), with the petitioners claiming it
arbitrarily and disproportionately violates their rights to equality under
Article 14 and to life and personal liberty (including reproductive autonomy)
under Article 21 of the Constitution, especially given their prior initiation
of treatment before the Act's enforcement.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The court dismissed the writ petition,
upholding the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted
Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, finding that it does not
infringe Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution and refusing to grant the
petitioners an exemption to access ART services despite their age
ineligibility.
The court acknowledged that reproductive
choices, including the aspiration to parenthood, are integral to personal
liberty and bodily integrity under Article 21, as established in precedents
like Suchita Srivastava & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Administration (2009).
However, it emphasized that this right is not absolute and can be subject to
reasonable regulations in the interest of social welfare and public health, as
upheld in cases such as Javed and Others Vs. State of Haryana (2003). The
impugned provision was evaluated not as an absolute bar on autonomy but within
the framework of permissible legislative intervention. The age limits were
deemed rationally based on medical science, ethical standards, and the welfare
of the mother and child, falling within the legislature's domain. The court
noted that judicial review does not extend to assessing the wisdom of policy
choices but only whether they transgress constitutional boundaries, and here,
the fixation of age limits was not arbitrary or "picked out from a
hat" but grounded in legitimate state objectives like ensuring safe and
responsible ART practices.
Furthermore, the court applied the
presumption of constitutionality to the parliamentary enactment, placing the
burden on the petitioners to prove otherwise, which they failed to do. The
provision's uniform application to all intending couples was found to have an
intelligible differentia with a direct nexus to the Act's goals of ethical
regulation. Citing Union of India Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (1994), age-based
classifications were upheld when rational and uniform. The petitioners'
argument of a vested right from pre-Act treatment was rejected, as eligibility
must be governed by the law in force at the time of access, without creating
individual exemptions that would substitute judicial discretion for legislative
policy. Overall, the statutory scheme was seen as non-arbitrary, proportionate,
and aligned with constitutional principles, warranting judicial deference in
matters of social and health legislation.
ANALYSIS:
In this judgment from the Gauhati High
Court in A. v. The Union of India, the court robustly defends the legislative
prerogative in regulating assisted reproductive technologies by upholding
Section 21(g) of the ART Act, 2021, against claims of constitutional
invalidity. The decision underscores a balanced approach to fundamental rights,
recognizing reproductive autonomy under Article 21 while subordinating it to
reasonable state interventions grounded in public health and ethical
considerations. By invoking precedents like Suchita Srivastava (2009) for
affirming reproductive choice as part of personal liberty, yet aligning with
Javed v. State of Haryana (2003) and Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal
(1994) to justify age-based classifications as non-arbitrary when tied to
rational objectives such as maternal and child welfare, the court demonstrates
judicial restraint. This reasoning effectively rebuts the petitioners'
arguments of arbitrariness and vested rights from pre-Act treatments,
emphasizing that uniform age limits prevent ad hoc exemptions that could
undermine the Act's regulatory framework. Critically, the judgment's deference
to scientific evidence and parliamentary wisdom strengthens the presumption of
constitutionality, but it may be seen as overly conservative in not probing
deeper into individualized medical assessments, potentially overlooking
advancements in geriatric reproductive medicine.
The ruling has significant implications for
reproductive rights in India, reinforcing a paternalistic state role in family
planning and ART access amid evolving societal norms on delayed parenthood due
to career or health factors. By prioritizing collective welfare over individual
autonomy, it sets a precedent that could influence similar challenges to age
restrictions in other health laws, such as surrogacy regulations, while
inviting scrutiny from higher courts like the Supreme Court on whether such
blanket limits align with proportionality tests under Article 14. In a broader
context, as India's fertility rates decline and medical technologies advance,
this decision might spur legislative reviews or amendments to incorporate
flexible criteria based on fitness rather than age alone, especially post-2021
Act implementation. However, it also highlights the tension between judicial
non-interference in policy domains and protecting marginalized groups' access
to ART, potentially discouraging older couples from pursuing parenthood through
legal channels and pushing them toward unregulated alternatives, with risks to
health and ethics.
info@adhwaitha.com