Gauhati High Court Upholds Age Limits for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Says It Protects Mother and Child
Bench Rules Age Caps in ART Act Are Legal and Based on Science
Petition Challenging Provision Dismissed, Court Emphasizes Regulatory Role of Law
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi: December 31, 2025:
In a major legal decision affecting fertility treatments across India, the **Gauhati High Court** has upheld the age limits prescribed under the **Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021** (also known as the ART Act). The court held that the age restrictions for men and women seeking assisted reproductive services are valid, rational and meant to safeguard the **health and well-being of both the mother and the child**. The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the age criteria as unconstitutional.
Also Read: Vodafone Idea’s AGR Relief: Government Freezes ₹87,695 Crore Dues, Eyes Investor Confidence
Background of the ART Act and the Challenge
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 was enacted to regulate fertility clinics, protect the rights of individuals and couples seeking treatment, and ensure ethical and medical standards in procedures like in-vitro fertilization (IVF). An important part of this law is **Section 21(g) **, which sets **minimum and maximum age limits** for availing assisted reproductive technology (ART) services. Under this provision:
* A **woman must be between 21 and 50 years of age** to be eligible for ART services.
* A **man must be between 21 and 55 years of age** to access these services.
The petition was filed by a married couple who were unable to avail ART services because they exceeded the age criteria under the Act. They argued that the age restrictions violated their fundamental rights under **Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India** — the rights to equality and personal liberty — by unfairly limiting their access to treatment even if they were medically fit.
Court’s Reasoning: Law Based on Medical and Ethical Grounds
The division bench of the Gauhati High Court — comprising **Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar** and **Justice Arun Dev Choudhury** — examined the petition carefully. In its verdict, the court made key points about reproductive rights and the scope of legislative regulation:
* The court acknowledged that the **right to reproductive choice** is part of personal liberty under the Constitution. However, this right does not place personal decisions **outside the reach of reasonable regulation** designed to protect broader public health and welfare.
* The age limits under Section 21(g) are **not arbitrary**; they are based on **medical science, ethical standards, and social responsibility** to ensure that women who undergo ART are biologically capable of pregnancy and have the capacity to raise a child safely.
* The court found that the age limits apply **uniformly to all couples**, and there is an **intelligible difference** supporting the classification, meaning the provision satisfies the test of rational basis under Article 14.
* The High Court rejected the argument that the petitioners had already begun fertility treatment before the Act came into force. The bench clarified that **eligibility must be assessed based on the law applicable at the time treatment is sought**, not on earlier attempts.
By rejecting the plea, the Gauhati High Court confirmed that Section 21(g) of the ART Act withstands constitutional scrutiny and does not infringe upon equality or personal liberty guarantees in the Constitution.
What This Ruling Means for Couples and Clinics in India
Also Read: Delhi High Court: Father’s Duty to Maintain Minor Children Non-Negotiable, Even If Mother Earns More
The ruling has immediate impact for couples seeking fertility treatments in the **Northeast and across India**. Fertility clinics, ART providers, and prospective parents must now follow the clear age requirements set by the ART Act.
For many couples struggling with fertility issues, this decision underlines the importance of understanding legal requirements when planning treatment. While the law recognizes the deep personal desire for children, it also recognizes that:
Women’s reproductive health and safety are closely tied to age.
Risks to both mother and child increase significantly at advanced ages.
The law balances personal rights with public health concerns
Health experts note that pregnancy at older ages can pose serious medical risks, including higher chances of complications during pregnancy and childbirth. Courts have often referred to such scientific and ethical considerations when interpreting provisions that affect health and welfare.
Court Confirms Legislative Policy is Paramount in Welfare Laws
An important aspect of the High Court’s decision was its emphasis on the role of **legislative policy** in welfare and health regulation. The bench stated that fixing age limits is a **policy decision taken by Parliament**, and the judiciary’s role is limited to examining whether such decisions cross constitutional boundaries.
The judges held that allowing individual exceptions based on personal situations or medical fitness would amount to courts **substituting their discretion for legislative wisdom**, which is not permissible. Therefore, even genuine personal hardships or unique life histories cannot automatically override clear legal norms like age criteria in the ART Act.
The judgment reiterates that while constitutional rights are fundamental, they are not absolute. In areas touching on **social welfare, ethics, and public health**, reasonable restrictions are valid and necessary for broader societal interests.
Responses and Reactions
Legal experts have welcomed the decision, stating that it brings clarity to an area of law that affects a large number of families and healthcare providers. Many commentators believe that while the ruling is strict, it reflects a careful balance between individual aspirations and scientifically grounded policy. Clinics offering ART services must now strictly comply with age eligibility checks before beginning treatment.
Observers also note that this ruling may influence other high courts and possibly guide future Supreme Court hearings when similar issues are raised about age limitations and reproductive autonomy under ART laws.
Looking Ahead: ART Law and Reproductive Rights
Also Read: India Opens Insurance Sector to 100% FDI: New Rules Remove ‘Total Foreign Investment’ Concept
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act represents one of the most significant legal structures governing fertility treatments in India. Since its enactment, courts across the country have been dealing with challenges to various provisions, especially regarding age limits and eligibility.
While some courts, like those in Kerala and Madras, have issued interim rulings relaxing age conditions in individual cases, the overarching legal framework remains the ART Act’s age criteria. The Supreme Court will ultimately be the final authority on any constitutional challenge to these provisions if such appeals arise.
For now, the Gauhati High Court’s decision stands as a clear affirmation that age limits under the ART Act are valid, necessary, and designed to protect the health of mothers and children alike.
Search Keywords (for faster and accurate search)
* Gauhati High Court ART Act age limit
* Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Act India age restriction judgment
* Section 21g ART Act constitutional validity
* IVF age limit India court decision
* ART services eligibility India
* ART Act 2021 age criteria upheld
* reproductive rights India ART Act ruling
* ART age caps mother child wellbeing judgment
* High Court dismisses age challenge ART Act
Also Read: Income Tax Refund Rules Explained: Interest on Delays and How to Track Your Refund