Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
PUSHPA I.K., SUGATHAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA, STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 352 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 8806 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 11992 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 12992 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 13416 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 13525 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 13628 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 13647 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16106 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16107 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16140 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16173 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16429 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16431 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16496 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 16547 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 17635 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 18129 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19054 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19143 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19149 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19238 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19271 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19611 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19860 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 19973 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20357 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20359 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20504 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20748 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20788 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20902 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 20914 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21079 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21084 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21109 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21346 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21478 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21783 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 21804 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 22257 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 22788 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 22823 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 23019 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 23418 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 24247 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 24748 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 24842 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 24912 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25037 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25055 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25072 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25512 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25780 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25970 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 25991 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 26087 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 26207 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 26494 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 26888 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 26909 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 27372 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 27955 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28059 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28296 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28309 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28310 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28361 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28618 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 28681 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29615 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29753 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29806 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29808 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29842 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29851 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 29947 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32404 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32465 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32479 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32496 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32551 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32620 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32632 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32699 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32705 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34258 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34281 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34306 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34687 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34770 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34774 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34790 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34891 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34948 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 34963 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35025 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35039 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35098 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35329 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35484 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 35964 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 36032 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 36857 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 37048 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 38525 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 39190 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 39411 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 40324 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 40613 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 41885 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 42431 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 42480 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 43271 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 43303 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 43525 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 3 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 67 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 1182 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 1729 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 1745 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 2701 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3108 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3375 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3515 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3602 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 3861 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 5143 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 6939 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9085 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9104 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9199 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9209 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 9648 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 10413 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 10509 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 10531 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 11301 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 13278 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 13353 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 13779 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 15621 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 17441 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 17973 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 17992 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 18001 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 18013 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 18015 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 18035 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 18560 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 19986 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 20013 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 20319 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 20506 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 21179 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 21199 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 22735 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 23271 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 23348 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 23973 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 27586 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 40119 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 44092 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 12380 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14623 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 16359 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 21151 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 22557 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 23300 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 35013 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36167 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36427 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36703 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37156 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37498 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37560 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 38135 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 39326 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 42430 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 43035 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 44092 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 12380 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 14623 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 16359 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 21151 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 22557 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 23300 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 35013 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36167 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36427 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 36703 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37156 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37498 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 37560 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 38135 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 39326 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 42430 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 43035 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 44092 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO. 18035/2024 | WP(C) NO. 20013/2024 | WP(C) NO. 37560/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri. Akash S., Shri. Girish Kumar M S, Smt. V.S.VARALEKSHMI, Smt. Devika Jayaraj
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Government Pleader

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 equality.

Headnote:(A) Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 - Section 21(g) - Upper age limit for availing ART services challenged - Petitioners claim violation of Article 14 of the Constitution - Union of India's valid justifications for age limits upheld - Previous rulings on similar issues considered. (Para 1, 4, 9, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, either husband or wife, challenged the constitutionality of age restrictions in ART services post the 2021 Act, having surpassed the upper limits set therein.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petitions and upheld the validity of the age restrictions based on decisions of the Union of India and past judgments.

Issues: Whether the age limit prescribed in the 2021 Act violates the constitutional right to equality.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined the age limits for ART services are justifiable based on child welfare considerations and upheld prior judgments supporting the age restriction.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to age limits for art services (Para 1)
2. admission of similar cases in court (Para 2 , 5 , 6)
3. constitutional validity of age limit provisions (Para 3 , 4)
4. final decisions based on judicial precedents (Para 7 , 11 , 12)
5. judgment precedence based on merits (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

These writ petitions are filed by the petitioners, who are husband and wife or 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 the persons above the prescribed age limit. Challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21 (g) of the Act to the extent it prescribes 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 petitions.

2. Since the petitioners in these writ petitions are similarly situated and the issue involved is one and the same, these writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. For disposing of the writ petitions, WP(C) No.352 of 2023 is taken as the leading case.

3. In these writ petitions, as stated above, either the husband or the wife crossed the upper age limit prescribed under the Act. According to the petitioners, the prescription of an upper age limit for men and women is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also challenged the Act on the ground that it does not contain any transitional provision.

4. All these writ petitions were contested by the Union of India by filing counter affidavits and statements. In WP(C) No.352 of 2023, the Union of India filed a counter affidavit, contending that the Constitution of India mandates the State to act as parent’s patria for the protection, wellbeing and welfare of all children. It is also contended that the core guiding force and the basic structure of the Act is completely allied with the other statutory provisions enacted for the welfare of the children. According to the Union of India, the issue regarding prescribing age limit for men and women has been considered by the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare and the same recommended the age criteria of 21 to 50 years for women and 21 to 55 years for men for availing ART services. It is also pointed out that the Single Bench of this Court, inNandini K. v.Union of India [ 2023 (1) KHC 149 ], upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21 (g) of the Act and the directions given therein were taken up with the National Board. It is also stated that (g) of Chapter-IV of the Act, prescribing the age limits for availing ART services is under consideration before the apex court in WP(C) No.756/2022 and connected IAs.

5. Thereafter, a statement dated 20.01.2026 was filed by the Union of India in WP(C) No.352 of 2023, stating that the learned Single Judge of this Court inNandini K. (supra) had upheld the age limit fixed under Section 21 (g) of the Act, and that, aggrieved by the directions passed therein, the Union of India filed appeals, which were allowed holding, “Thus for the reason aforementioned, we hereby allow the intra court appeal viz-a-viz the directions issued in the impugned judgment and uphold findings negating the challenge to provisions of (g) of the Act of 2021.” According to the Union of India, since the Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal filed by them, these writ petitions are only to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the respective learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and the learned Government Pleader.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 10121

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 equality.

Cases Referred (3)