IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Manjit Kaur and another ... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only Whether the full Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on the operative judgment is part of the pronounced judgment is pronounced

07.11.2025 15.12.2025 15.12.2025 No Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. R.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Shalini Attri, Senior Panel Counsel, UOI for respondent No.1.

Mr. Harinder Pal Singh Ishar, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4.

Mr. Sahil Khunger, Advocate for the respondent No.5.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioners have approached this court, inter alia, for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to permit and provide assisted reproductive technology (ART) services, including In Vitro Fertilization (IVF treatment), to the petitioners for conception of a human embryo and its implantation in petitioner no.1.

2. Counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners were married in 2004 and have consulted various doctors in India and abroad, but petitioner no.1 has not been able to conceive. They approached Nova IVF Fertility Centre, Jalandhar-respondent no.5, but were informed that they could not be given treatment as petitioner no.2 had surpassed the age of 55 years and is debarred under Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (for short ‘the Act of 2021’) from undergoing the treatment.

3. Petition has been contested by the official respondents. In its response, respondent no.1-Union of India has stated that as petitioner no.2 has exceeded the age criteria prescribed under Section 21 (g) (ii) of the Act of 2021, petitioners are ineligible to avail ART services. It has been stated that the age restriction has been laid down in the Act of 2021 after considering the best interest of the child to be born through the ART procedure. A stand has been taken that as petitioners have filed the writ petition as a couple, they fall within the definition of a ‘commissioning couple’, which requires satisfaction of the twin conditions regarding age laid down in Section 21(g) (i) and (ii) of the Act of 2021. Reference has been made to the Report No.129, Annexure R-1, of the Standing Parliamentary Committee on Health and Family Welfare, as well as the minutes of the meeting of the National Board, Annexure R-3, and instructions dated 31.03.2023, Annexure R-4. A separate response has been filed by the State of Punjab-respondent nos. 2 to 4, wherein it has been stated that as petitioner no.2 is above the age of 55 years, he is not eligible to undergo the treatment as male fertility and sperm quality declines with age, especially after the age of 55 years. Respondent no.5 has not filed any response, but has adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions.

5. Petitioners have not challenged any of the statutory provisions of the Act of 2021. Limited prayer made in the petition is for permission to undergo IVF treatment. Primarily, reliance placed by the petitioners is upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Sanchita Ghosh and another versus Union of India and others, (WPA-12154-2023, decided on 08.04.2024), whereby the provisions of the statute have been exhaustively discussed.

6. Act of 2021 defines the ‘commissioning couple’ as an infertile married couple, who approach an ART clinic or bank for obtaining its authorised services. The combined age of the commissioning couple has not been laid down under the statute. Section 2 (1) (n) of the Act of 2021 lays down that ‘patients’ means an individual or a couple, who approach a registered ART clinic for management of infertility. The term patients, therefore, recognizes the concept of a couple as being distinct from an individual. Section 21 of the Act of 2021 lays down general duties of ART clinics and bank, who