Back
Beyond the Age Threshold: Protects in IVF Case
In a significant ruling for , the has held that the limitations prescribed under () cannot be applied mechanically to halt ongoing medical treatments involving pre-existing embryos. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, presiding over the matter, emphasized that the Act is fundamentally regulatory, not intended to create "insurmountable barriers" that defeat legitimate reproductive choices.
The Path to Parenthood: A Tragic Catalyst The petitioners, a married couple based in Delhi, sought fertility treatment following the tragic demise of their son in . By , the couple had undergone extensive evaluation, counseling, and medical screening at , Dwarka. At the time they initiated the procedure, both petitioners were within the age limits mandated by Section 21(g) of the .
Six embryos were created and cryopreserved. However, during the initial Frozen Embryo Transfer (FET) attempt, the procedure was unsuccessful. By the time the couple sought to utilize their remaining five embryos, the female petitioner had marginally crossed the upper age limit of 50 years. The hospital subsequently declined treatment, citing the strict mandates of the .
The Arguments: Regulation vs. Fundamental Rights The petitioners challenged this denial, contending that their —a facet of the and under —was being infringed upon. Their counsel argued that the does not prescribe a composite age limit for "" and that the statute must be interpreted purposively to protect the right to family life when dealing with previously created biological material.
Conversely, the respondents maintained that the age limits in Section 21(g) are mandatory, evidence-based policy choices grounded in maternal and child welfare considerations. They argued that the Court should not "dilate" these statutory restrictions through judicial intervention, noting that the embryos were created well after the Act had come into force.
A The Court distinguished between the initiation of a fresh IVF cycle and the continuation of a medical process already underway. Justice Kaurav observed that holding otherwise would lead to an absurd outcome where created biological material, which is intrinsically connected to the petitioners' , becomes unusable simply due to the passage of time during a lawful medical process.
The judgment aligned with legal principles established in landmark cases such as and , which affirm that reproductive choice is an inseparable facet of . The Court also drew support from the ’s ruling in , noting that the legislature did not intend to impose collective age restrictions on couples if the individual eligibility requirements were met at the time of commencement.
Key Observations
*
"The cryopreserved embryos in question are not merely preserved biological material in abstract but are intrinsically connected with the Petitioners‟
,
and their constitutional protected choice relating procreation and family life."
*
"The
is fundamentally regulatory in character. The object of the enactment is to ensure ethical and safe ART practices and not to create insurmountable barriers defeating legitimate continuation of treatment processes already lawfully undertaken."
*
"Statutory provisions regulating ART procedures receive a
that advances
while preserving the regulatory object sought to be achieved."
*
"The legislative scheme does not contemplate any joint or collective age restriction for a 'commissioning couple'."
Impact of the Decision The ’s decision serves as a vital for future cases involving fertility treatment. By prioritizing the spirit of the law over a pedantic, literal application of Section 21(g), the Court has ensured that patients who lawfully enter into ART programs are not abandoned mid-treatment due to administrative delays or strict age-threshold milestones. This ruling reinforces the notion that while the provides necessary safety guardrails, it cannot be weaponized to strip citizens of their constitutional right to build a family.
The petition was allowed, and the hospital has been directed to proceed with the transfer of the five remaining cryopreserved embryos, subject to standard medical health and safety protocols.
