SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
BIJESH.K – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33554 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.T.SWETHA, SMT.VISMAYA K., SMT.SHRUTHI BALAKRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SMT.ALKA WARRIAR, CGC, SHRI.VIVEK MENON, SHRI.DIVAKARAN T.N., SMT.FATHIMATHUL SHAHIJANAZ M.A.

The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021's age limitations for ART services are constitutionally valid.

Headnote:The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, prohibits ART services to individuals above a certain age. Petitioners, a husband and wife, challenged the constitutionality of Section 21(g) of the Act due to their age exceeding the prescribed limits. Following precedent from 'Pushpa K. v. Union of India', the court affirmed the Act's validity, stating the petitioners are not entitled to relief. The court dismissed the writ petition, citing consistent prior rulings.

Table of Content
1. age restrictions under art act. (Para 1)
2. court affirms previous ruling. (Para 2)

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, who are husband and wife, either of them, having crossed the upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (for short, “the Act”). The Act prohibits the application of the Assisted Reproductive Technology services (ART services) to persons above the prescribed age limit. Challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21 (g) of the Act to the extent it prescribes a maximum age for men and women to seek ART services from licensed clinics and also seeking a direction to the respondents to take immediate steps to provide ART services to the petitioners, they have approached this Court with the above writ petition.

2. A similar issue had come up before this court in Pushpa K & anr. Vs The Union of India & Ors. [W.P(C) No.352 of 2013 and connected cases] and this court by common judgment dated 31.01.2026 has dismissed the writ petitions. Following the judgment in Pushpa K.(supra), I find that the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief as claimed and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top