$~35 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 19380/2025 Date of decision: 13.03.2026 IN THE MATTER OF:

XX .....Petitioner (Through: Petitioners in person.)

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents (Through: Dr. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr.Subhrdeep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar , Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advocates.)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition assails the communication dated 28.11.2025 issued by respondent no. 4 i.e., Aveya IVF & Fertility Centre, whereby the petitioners were informed that they are ineligible to proceed with the surrogacy process on the ground that petitioner No. 2 has crossed the upper age limit of 50 years prescribed under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 (hereinafter “the Act”).

2. The petitioners being a married couple intend to avail gestational surrogacy in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On 30.06.2025, the Office of the Chief District Medical Officer (West District), DTE of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued a Medical Indication Certificate through the District Medical Board, certifying that there exists a genuine medical indication necessitating surrogacy. At the time of issuance of the said certificate, petitioner no. 2 was 49 years of age. Subsequently, on 15.09.2025, petitioner no. 2 attained the age of 50 years. It, thus, remains undisputed that as on date, the petitioner no.2 has already attained 50 years of age. Respondent no. 4, therefore, declined to proceed with the surrogacy process on the ground that the petitioner no.2 had already crossed the upper age limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act.

3. Though, there is no refusal by any of the Government Authority with respect to the issuance of the eligibility certificate, however, looking at the nature of the dispute raised herein, this Court has been called upon to rule as to whether the language used in Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act renders the applicant ineligible on completion of the age of 50 years or 55 years in case of female and male respectively.

4. The petitioners, who appear in person places reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Rajitha P.V. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025:KER:21383. They submit that the Kerala High Court in the said decision has considered the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Prasad Chatterjee v. Dinanath Sharma,, (2000) 8 SCC 649. and has held that the eligibility of the intending male or female to avail the surrogacy service extends throughout the 50^th or 55^th year as the case may be.

5. Dr. Monika Arora, learned counsel for the respondent, has strongly opposed the submissions made by the petitioners and has placed on record her written submissions. She has also tried to emphasize, on the basis of the report of the expert committee on the implications of conception and advance parental age dated 21.01.2026, that the language used in the statute is explicitly clear and does not require any external interpretation or insertion of additional words. She also submits that once a female or male completes 50 or 55 years of age respectively, they render themselves ineligible to undergo the surrogacy process. According to her, any other interpretation would be irreconcilable with the mandate of the Act.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record.

7. Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Act, which this Court is called upon to interpret is extracted as under:

“(c) an eligibility certificate for intending couple is issued separately by the appropriate authority on fulfilment of the following conditions, namely: (I) the intending couple are married and between the age of 23 to 50 years in case of female and between 26 to 55 years in case of male on the day of certification”

8. The provision prescribes that an intending woman must be between the age of 23 to 50 years as on t