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) 12733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MRS. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J
SHAJI DEVASIA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 15130 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW, SMT.AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL, SHRI.ABESH ALOSIOUS, SHRI.SEN C PUTHUPPARAMPIL
For the Respondents: SMT.M.S.KIRAN, SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR, SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR, SHRI.ADITYA VENUGOPALAN, SHRI.MAHESH CHANDRAN, SMT.ANGITA T. MENON, SHRI.ABHISHEK S.

The court upheld the age restrictions on Assisted Reproductive Technology services as constitutional, affirming the decision from prior cases.

Headnote:The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 restricts ART services based on age limits for men and women. Petitioners, exceeding the age limits, challenge the constitutionality of Section 21(g) and seek access to ART. The court notes the precedent in Pushpa K. & Anr. and finds no grounds for relief, dismissing the writ petition. The court ruled that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Table of Content
1. constitutional validity of age restrictions for art services. (Para 1)
2. court's dismissal based on prior judgment findings. (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