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) 12730

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
AJAYAKUMAR.N – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 8329 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SMT.ANJANA M VADHYAR, SHRI.RISHINATH R.
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The court upheld the constitutionality of age restrictions under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, denying relief to parties exceeding the prescribed limits.

Headnote:This judgment concerns the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which prescribes a maximum age limit for seeking ART services. The petitioners, having crossed this age, claim the limitation infringes their rights. Following a similar previous judgment (Pushpa K. & anr. Vs The Union of India), the court finds no grounds for relief and dismisses the writ petition, reaffirming the validity of the age restrictions.

Table of Content
1. age restrictions for art services (Para 1)
2. court's reliance on precedent and dismissal (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 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