The prescription of age limits under Section 21(g) of ART Act is valid, but the absence of transitional provisions is irrational.

1. 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 S.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 Art.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, in Nandini K. v. Union of India ( 2023 (1) KHC 149 ), upheld the constitutional validity of S.21(g) of the Act and the directions given therein were taken up with the National Board. It is also stated that S.21(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 in Nandini K. (supra) had upheld the age limit fixed under S.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 S.21(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 Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 25