The courtroom at the Gauhati High Court was quiet but attentive when a deeply personal challenge came up for hearing - a married couple questioning whether law should bar them from assisted parenthood based purely on age.
The case struck at the intersection of medical science, reproductive choice, and legislative policy. At its heart was one question: can courts relax age limits fixed by Parliament for assisted reproductive treatments?
On December 18, 2025, the Division Bench answered in the negative.
Read also: Pune Love Marriage Ends in 24 Hours: Court Grants Swift Mutual Divorce After Living Arrangemen
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by a married couple who had been struggling to conceive for several years. Their journey into assisted reproductive treatment began as early as 2020. However, like many medical plans during that period, their treatment was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
After an unsuccessful procedure at a private hospital, the couple approached Indira IVF Fertility Centre in Guwahati in March 2024. But this time, they were turned away. The reason was not medical fitness, but age.
The clinic cited Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which prescribes an upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men seeking ART services.
Feeling aggrieved, the couple moved the High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of the age restriction.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Eight-Week Relief to Elected Sarpanch in Surrender Dispute, Flags Risk to
Appearing for the petitioners, counsel argued that the desire to become parents is an essential part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The restriction imposes a blanket ban,” the petitioners contended, “without considering individual health, medical readiness, or prior treatment history.”
They further argued that since the couple had started fertility treatment before the 2021 law came into force, the age restriction should not apply to them retrospectively. According to them, the provision violated both equality under Article 14 and the right to reproductive autonomy under Article 21.
The Union of India and other respondents defended the law, stating that the ART Act, 2021 was enacted after extensive deliberation to regulate a sensitive and evolving medical field.
Read also: Supreme Court Refuses to Interfere in Madarsa Property Dispute, Clears Way for Action Pending
They told the court that age limits were fixed based on scientific data concerning maternal health risks, fetal outcomes, and long-term child welfare. Courts, they argued, should not substitute legislative policy with individual exceptions.
Court’s Observations
The Bench, led by Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, acknowledged that reproductive choice is indeed part of personal liberty.
“The right to make reproductive choices forms part of personal liberty,” the court observed, while also noting that such rights are not absolute.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court rulings, the Bench underlined that social and public health legislations allow reasonable restrictions. It made clear that courts do not assess whether a law is ideal, only whether it crosses constitutional boundaries.
On the age limit itself, the Bench said it was not arbitrary. “Fixation of age is a policy decision,” the court remarked, adding that the restriction was rooted in medical ethics and the safety of both the woman and the child.
Read also: Delhi High Court Blocks Fake ‘Akasa Air’ Job Scam Sites; Orders Domain & UPI Freeze
The judges also rejected the argument of prior treatment creating a vested right. Eligibility, they clarified, must be assessed according to the law in force at the time of seeking treatment.
Granting individual exemptions, the Bench warned, would mean replacing legislative judgment with judicial discretion - something courts must avoid.
Decision
After examining the statutory framework and constitutional principles, the High Court held that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 is constitutionally valid.
“The provision does not suffer from manifest arbitrariness,” the Bench concluded, dismissing the writ petition. No costs were imposed.
Case Title: X vs Union of India & Others
Case No.: WP(C)/2344/2024
Case Type: Writ Petition (Constitutional Challenge)
Decision Date: 18 December 2025
