Back
V. G. ARUN
Nandini K – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The writ petitions are filed by couples undergoing or intending to undergo assisted reproductive services, driven by the desire to have children. The petitioners challenge the upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 ('the ART Act' for short), which prohibits the application of ART services to persons above the prescribed age limit. According to the petitioners, prescription of the upper age limit under Section 21 (g) of the ART Act is irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of their right to reproduction, acknowledged as a fundamental right. They therefore want Section 21(g) of the ART Act, to the extent it prescribes an upper age limit for availing assisted reproductive technology services, to be declared unconstitutional.
2. Heard Advs.Akash Sathyanandan and Alex Scaria for the petitioners, S.Manu, the Deputy Solicitor General assisted by V. Girish Kumar, for the Central Government, Government Pleader Riyal Devassy for the State Government, N.Raguraj for the Kerala State Medical Council and Ramola Nayanpally, the amicus curiae.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners c
Point of Law : Impact of prescription of upper age limit on liberty of individuals is a matter which the National Board should bring to notice of Central Government, so as to effectuate a detailed di....
Age limits in Section 21(g) of ART Act upheld as constitutional, based on medical and reproductive considerations.
The court emphasized the need for legislative enactments to be founded on clear medical evidence and to prevent unjust operation of laws, especially in matters concerning reproductive choices and per....
The court upheld the constitutionality of age restrictions in the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, confirming that the age limits serve child welfare interests and do not violate the right to eq....
The prescription of age limits under Section 21(g) of ART Act is valid, but the absence of transitional provisions is irrational.
The regulation on age limits for Assisted Reproductive Technology services is constitutionally valid under public health considerations.
The court upheld the age limit for ART services, affirming the constitutionality of the relevant statutory provision.
The Assisted Reproductive Technology Act's age restrictions are constitutional and do not infringe upon the petitioners' rights.
The constitutional validity of age limits in accessing Assisted Reproductive Technology services was upheld.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
