ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY (REGULATION) ACT, 2021
[Act No. 42 of 2021]
[18th December, 2021]
PREAMBLE
An Act for the regulation and supervision of the assisted reproductive technology clinics and the assisted reproductive technology banks, prevention of misuse, safe and ethical practice of assisted reproductive technology services for addressing the issues of reproductive health where assisted reproductive technology is required for becoming a parent or for freezing gametes, embryos, embryonic tissues for further use due to infertility, disease or social or medical concerns and for regulation and supervision of research and development and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Be it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-second Year of the Republic of India as follows:--
Legal Comments
"Scope and Purpose" - ART Act 2021 regulates ART clinics/banks to prevent misuse and safeguard reproductive health, with Section 21(g) prescribing age-based eligibility for recipients and Section 27 detailing donor gamete sourcing - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Section 21(g) Overview" - Section 21(g) governs eligibility: women 21-50 and men 21-55 for ART services; debates focus on whether age limits apply to individuals or couples - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Individual vs Couple Liability" - Several judgments hold age limits apply to the individual prospective recipient, not collectively to the commissioning couple; this preserves independent rights of the wife even if the husband exceeds age limits - [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [01500056673], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Constitutional Validity – Articles 14 & 21" - Courts have tested Section 21(g) for rationality and non-arbitrariness; majority view upholds rational linkage to maternal health and child welfare, while recognizing that challenges may be addressed through legislature or policy review - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] (also see broader analyses in [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285])
"Right to Reproductive Autonomy" - ART rights are anchored in Article 21 as a component of personal liberty, but not absolute; restrictions must be rational, serve health/public welfare, and avoid unjust classifications - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969] (also echoed in many 21(g) decisions)
"Case Law Emphasis on Individual Age Criterion" - Numerous Writ Petitions align with the view that a wife under 50 may access ART even if the husband is over the limit, and vice versa; courts repeatedly emphasize that the Act treats women and men as separate entities - [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680], [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Opposing View: Composite Age Limit Contention" - Some judgments acknowledge the argument that absence of an upper age limit in definition of 'Woman' is overridden by Section 21(g), leading to debates on legislative intent and constitutional interpretation; these are contested in several petitions - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Donor Gamete Use & Surrogacy Interface" - ART Act interacts with Surrogacy Act; courts have addressed eligibility for using donor gametes and gestational surrogacy, stressing alignment with main Acts and Form/Rule compliance - [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Rule-Making Context" - The 2022 ART Rules (Rule 13, Form Nos, etc.) require written informed consent and standardized processes; the rules empower safeguards around donor consent, gamete sourcing, and eligibility testing - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Interim Relief Jurisprudence" - In urgent ART-related petitions, high courts have issued interim orders allowing preservation of gametes/embryos and continuation of procedures to protect reproductive rights pending final adjudication - [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
"Retrospective Application in Surrogacy vs ART" - Courts have held that retrospective application of age/place-based eligibility in surrogacy matters may violate rights to reproductive autonomy; analogous principles inform ART age-rule challenges - [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700], [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Donor vs Recipient Age Statistics in Rules" - Regulation 27 detailing donor age bands (21-55 for semen, 23-35 for oocytes) illustrates careful calibration between donor safety and recipient eligibility, influencing age-based policy debates - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Fundamental Rights Burden" - The challengers bear the burden to show unconstitutionality; courts have often upheld age-based classifications when rationally connected to health and welfare concerns - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Economic and Social Context" - ART Act situates reproductive rights within a broader health/public policy framework; Parliament's legislative choices are given deference but subject to constitutional scrutiny in individual petitions - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Key Statutory Cross-References" - Definitions: 'Woman' (Sec 2(u)); 'Commissioning Couple' (Sec 2(e)); 'Gamete Donor' (Sec 2(h)); 'Infertility' (Sec 2(j)); Penalties and safeguards are further elaborated in the Rules and later sections - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Writ Jurisdiction & Remedies" - Article 226 petitions often seek mandamus or directions to grant eligibility; courts grant limited relief pending policy clarity, emphasizing procedural compliance and medical boards where relevant - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Interplay with Medical Boards" - In cases challenging age-based refusals, courts have sometimes required medical boards or health assessments to justify safety concerns before denying ART services - [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Scope Note – Preliminary Section" - The Preliminary section sets out the broad contours: definition, purpose, and the central issue of age-based eligibility under Section 21(g); commentaries focus on constitutional balance and policy rationality - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Punishment and Penalties" - For completeness: the Act provides punishments for contravention, with penalties specified in the Act and Rules, reinforcing regulatory aims; exact penalties are itemized in the main Act (not reiterated here due to scope) -
(1) This Act may be called the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
(2) It shall come into force on such date1 as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
_____________________________
1. w.e.f. 25.01.2022, vide Notification No. SO291(E), dated 20.01.2022.
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "assisted reproductive technology" with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means all techniques that attempt to obtain a pregnancy by handling the sperm or the oocyte outside the human body and transferring the gamete or the embryo into the reproductive system of a woman;
(b) "assisted reproductive technology bank" means an organisation which shall be responsible for collection of gametes, storage of gametes and embryos and supply of gametes to the assisted reproductive technology clinics or their patients;
(c) "assisted reproductive technology clinic" means any premises equipped with requisite facilities and medical practitioners registered with the National Medical Commission for carrying out the procedures related to the assisted reproductive technology;
(d) "child" mean
Legal Comments
"Introduction" - ART Regulation Act 2021 aims to regulate ART clinics/banks and surrogacy; Section 21(g) imposes age-based eligibility (woman 21-50, man 21-55) for ART services [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361].
"What Section Says" - Section 21(g) requires clinics/banks to apply ART services only within specified age brackets; definitions of 'Woman' (21+) and 'Commissioning Couple' (infertile married couple) shape who is eligible [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], with related donor/gamete provisions in Section 27.
"Essential ingredients" - Individual age-based eligibility (not joint/couple-age); separate treatment of 'woman' and 'man' under Section 21(g); donor gamete sourcing rules; rights to donate/receive gametes governed by Sections 22, 27; protection of child’s welfare via statutory framework (Surrogacy Act 2021 interacts with ART Act) [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743].
"Scope of Section" - Applies to ART clinics/banks nationwide; governs who can access ART services; interacts with Surrogacy Act for surrogacy pathways; Rule-making powers under Section 42 enable further regulation via Rules/National/State Boards [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462].
"Punishment for Section" - Penalties not detailed in provided snippets; typical ART Act framework includes offenses and penalties in general provisions (not explicitly cited here); references to regulatory penalties appear in broader ART/Regulation Act discussions in sources with Bill/Act commentary (e.g., deterrence against non-compliance) though explicit section-wise penalties are not listed in the given extracts , [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], .
"Rights-based framing" - Courts consistently uphold ART access within allowed age brackets, while recognizing equal treatment of individuals (woman independent of spouse’s age) and rejecting composite-age restrictions as violative of Articles 14/21; several judgments emphasize that ART eligibility should be evaluated on individual, not solely on marital status or spousal age [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060].
"Constitutional validity - rational basis" - Courts have repeatedly held that Section 21(g)’s age limits are rationally linked to maternal health and child welfare; classification based on age is permissible if rational and non-arbitrary; burden on challengers to show unconstitutionality; no automatic invalidation found in the cited cases [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748].
"Constitutional rights - reproductive autonomy" - Supreme Court/High Courts acknowledge reproductive autonomy as part of personal liberty under Article 21 but permit regulation for welfare; right to reproductive choices is not absolute; age-based restrictions can be upheld when rational and supported by health considerations [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Sandip Harshadray Munjyasara VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1403], [XXXX, Wife of XXXX VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 608].
"Individual vs composite eligibility" - A prominent theme: eligibility should be assessed for each person (woman as individual, not merely as spouse); several decisions hold that a wife can access ART independent of husband’s age if she is within 21-50; similarly, a husband’s age limitations do not automatically bar the wife’s access; this supports equal treatment of individuals under ART Act [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969].
"Retrospective/applicability considerations" - For surrogacy, courts have limited retrospective application of age restrictions for processes begun prior to statute changes, protecting vested rights; similar principle informs ART contexts where ongoing processes should not be retroactively invalidated by post-enactment amendments (contextual to surrogacy cases but relevant to transitional concerns in ART) [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700].
"Donor gametes and donor eligibility" - ART Act divides roles among commissioning couple, woman, and donors; donor age ranges (e.g., 21-55 for sperm donors, 23-35 for oocyte donors) are set in Section 27; Form/Rule amendments (Form 2, Form 14) have been challenged where they limit donor options contrary to main Act provisions; tribunals stayed or struck down inconsistent amendments temporarily [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462], [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700], [Master Eric Thind VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2486].
"Surrogacy interplay" - Surrogacy Act 2021 imposes its own age criteria for intending couples (23-50 female, 26-55 male); issues arise when embryo freezing precedes enactment; courts protect vested surrogacy rights and require certificates of essentiality; retrospective application of post-embryo-freeze restrictions was held not to nullify prior rights in several judgments [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748].
"Writ jurisdiction and remedy scope" - Courts have used writs to enforce ART eligibility where clinics deny based on age, emphasizing the right to access ART within constitutional limits; interim relief often granted to preserve life/rights pending full adjudication; however, final orders require alignment with statutory framework [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748].
"Medical/health-safety governance" - Several judgments underscore health/safety considerations; hospitals/clinics may require medical boards or case-by-case health evaluations when age-based refusals are contested; courts direct medical boards to assess viability and safety rather than rely solely on statutory age caps in some contexts [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325].
"Administrative-law perspective" - The ART Act 2021 contemplates Rules and National/State Registries; the Central Government can issue rules to operationalize age criteria, donor standards, and clinic registration; court discussions urge careful alignment of Rules with the Act to avoid contradictions [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462].
"Key takeaway" - The prevailing jurisprudence supports targeted, individual-based eligibility for ART within the statutory age bands, cautions against blanket/composite age restrictions affecting spouses, and emphasizes reproductive autonomy balanced with health and welfare concerns; any challenged provision claiming unconstitutional discrimination typically hinges on whether the age-based distinction is rational and connected to child welfare.
"Reference notes" - For core statutory text and interpretation, see:
Sources cited:- Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361- Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969- Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285- Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321- Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439- V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462- Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700- Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748- Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680- Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679- Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743- XXXX, Wife of XXXX VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 608- Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060- Sandip Harshadray Munjyasara VS State of Gujarat - 2017 0 Supreme(Guj) 1403- Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969- Beena Wife Of Rajan Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 570- BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715- JAN BALAZ VS ANAND MUNICIPALITY - 2009 0 Supreme(Guj) 609- K. Veeramani VS T. S. Mani - 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 5649- Sonika Kumari VS Devastotra Poddar - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 1648- Mehul Choksi vs Union of India - Delhi (2020)- FE ENGINIRING CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED VS LG CABLE LIMITED - 2002 0 Supreme(Del) 1091- Agij Promotion Of Nineteenonea Media Pvt. Ltd. VS Union Of India - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1254- Prof. (Dr. ) Shlok Kumar Chakravarti S/o Late Mauzi Singh VS State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna - 2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 41- (general ART/Regulation context)
The National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to be constituted under sub-section (1) of section 15 of the Surrogacy Act shall be the National Board for the purposes of this Act.
Legal Comments
"Intro" - ART Regulation Act 2021 governs regulation/supervision of ART clinics/banks; aims to protect reproductive autonomy within constitutional bounds [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285] .
"SectionSays" - Section 21(g)(i)-(ii) imposes age eligibility: women 21-50, men 21-55 for ART procedures; definitions of "woman" and "commissioning couple" guide who may access services [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715].
"Essential ingredients" - Individual age-based eligibility; separate treatment of partners (not a composite age rule); donor gametes allowed; duties on clinics/banks including issuance of discharge certificates and donor screening under Section 21/27; Rule-making provisions in Act and Rules emphasize consent, insurance for donors, and standards [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965] [Sudha Mathesan vs Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Rep. by its Chairman, Coimbatore Medical College of Hospital - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75229].
"Scope" - Act applies to ART clinics/banks nationwide; includes surrogacy interplay via Surrogacy Act; includes power to source gametes, donor restrictions, and eligibility for surrogacy/emergency actions (Certificate of Essentiality) [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748].
"Punishment for Section" - The provided sources focus on rights/interpretation rather than explicit penalties; general enforcement/provisions for offences appear in the Act and related materials; penalties outlined in broader ART Reg Act literature indicate penal sanctions for violations (not explicitly in the excerpts) and regulatory penalties, with emphasis on compliance and regulatory action .
"Case law: constitutionality" - Courts in multiple cases uphold Section 21(g) as rationally linked to maternal/child welfare; age restrictions are non-arbitrary when grounded in health/public welfare, with burden on challengers to prove unconstitutionality; some judgments hold that age restrictions apply to individuals, not couples, enabling wives to proceed with ART if within age and with spousal consent; others recognize potential for retrospective rights in surrogacy contexts where embryo-embryo actions predate amendments [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361].
"Case: individual vs couple approach" - Several judgments articulate that ART eligibility applies to the individual, not mandatorily to the couple; thus a wife under 50 can proceed with ART even if husband over limit, subject to consent and specific procedural rules; this creates an equal-protection rationale and avoids unconstitutional classification based on marriage status [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679] [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743].
"Case: deceased husband / third-party gametes" - Courts have allowed use of third-party gametes/donor gametes where statutory provisions permit; the wife may access ART with donor gametes if within age and consent framework, recognizing non-composite age limits for commissioning individuals [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965] [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439].
"Interim reliefs" - In some petitions, interim relief allowed collection/preservation of sperm or embryo-related steps pending hearings to avoid undue delay and to safeguard reproductive wishes, while constitutional questions are resolved [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321] [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285].
"Surrogacy linkage" - Surrogacy Act interacts with ART Act; amendments to Form/Rules regarding donor gametes or eligibility may be stayed if inconsistent with main statutory framework; constitutional considerations emphasize reproductive autonomy and child welfare; retrospective application cannot undermine vested rights from embryo freezing/initiation prior to changes [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462] [JAN BALAZ VS ANAND MUNICIPALITY - 2009 0 Supreme(Guj) 609] [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700].
"Definition of 'Woman' vs age cap" - Courts have noted that the Act defines 'Woman' broadly, but Section 21(g) imposes age brackets; in several judgments, 21-50 for female eligibility prevails for treatment access; some decisions examine whether Section 21(g) creates an invalid classification when applied to married vs unmarried women [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [Ridava Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. VS Chief Commissioner Of Customs - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 796] [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743].
"Donor gamete ethics" - Decisions confirm that ART banks may source gametes from donors within specified age ranges; rules require donor screening and non-multi-use constraints; consent and insurance provisions are mandated for donors and recipients [027? not explicit; see 27 in Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361].
"Rights framework" - Reproductive rights are anchored in Article 21; though not absolute, state may regulate to protect health, welfare, and social interests; burden rests on challengers to show irrationality; courts have repeatedly upheld rational basis linking age limits to maternal health and child welfare [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715].
"Remedial directions" - Courts direct authorities to issue eligibility certificates, consider representations, and process applications expeditiously; in surrogacy contexts, certificates of essentiality must be issued within specified periods where appropriate [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361].
"Implementation note" - Rules (ART Rules 2022) require written informed consent, insurance for oocyte donors, and Form-specific consent processes; compliance with Rule framework is essential for viability of ART procedures [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965] [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [Sajitha Abdul Nazar Wife Of Abdul Nazer P Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 344].
"Constitutional trajectory" - The jurisprudence indicates a trend toward upholding statutory age restrictions while allowing individual access where permissible; the legal landscape anticipates amendments or clarifications via National Boards (NAB/State Boards) to address evolving medical/ethical standards [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969] [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439].
"Practical takeaway" - For practitioners: ensure donor/gamete sourcing within statutory age bands; verify patient eligibility on an individual basis; obtain informed consent; prepare for potential constitutional challenges but recognize existing precedents tolerating age-based classifications with health/public welfare rationales [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965].
"Policy implication" - The ART Act's architecture aims to balance reproductive autonomy with health safeguards; judicial decisions underscore the importance of case-by-case health evaluation and non-discriminatory application of eligibility criteria across genders as individuals rather than as a couple unit in many scenarios [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748].
"Ambit for reform" - Several opinions suggest legislative and policy bodies (National Board, State Boards) should engage in further deliberation about age-related classifications and potential amendments, given evolving medical evidence and international practices; but as of the cited judgments, the core provisions have been sustained with guided interpretations [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969] [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969].
"Judicial caution" - Courts emphasize not to infer broad exemptions without medical justification; any exception requests for age-based ART access typically require demonstrable health considerations and rigorous medical board assessments when relevant [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325] [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321].
"Cross-reference" - ART Act interacts with Surrogacy Act, Passports/Citizenship questions, MTP rights, and other reproductive rights jurisprudence; careful cross-referencing is essential when litigating ART-related issues in courts [JAN BALAZ VS ANAND MUNICIPALITY - 2009 0 Supreme(Guj) 609] [Ridava Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. VS Chief Commissioner Of Customs - 2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 796] [xxxx VS Union of India, Rep By Its Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development New Delhi - 2021 0 Supreme(Telangana) 419].
"Outcome in summaries" - In several cases, petitions challenging age limits were either allowed for interim relief or writ petitions allowed where individual eligibility was demonstrated; in others, constitutional validity was upheld with rational basis, often with a call for further policy discussion [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715] [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361].
"Source references" - Key references include: The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021; Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021; various High Court decisions cited in the provided sources (e.g., Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285, Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743, Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060, Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361, Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700, Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969, Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321); plus Rule/Regulations 2022 (ART Rules) [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965] [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969] [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679] [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060].
Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Surrogacy Act relating to--
(i) constitution of the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board;
(ii) term of office of Members of the National Board;
(iii) meetings of the National Board;
(iv) vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of the National Board;
(v) disqualifications for appointment as Member of the National Board;
(vi) temporary association of persons with the National Board for particular purposes;
(vii) authentication of orders and other instruments of the National Board; and
(viii) eligibility of Members of the National Board for re-appointment,
shall, mutatis mutandis, apply, so far as may
Legal Comments
"Scope" - ART Act regulates clinics/banks for assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy; sets age brackets for clinics, donors, and patients; establishes National/State Boards and National Registry to supervise compliance. [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Section 21(g)(i)" - General duty to apply ART services to a woman 21-50; "Section 21(g) emphasizes individual eligibility rather than couple-based criteria; age limits are enacted for recipients, not automatically for partners." [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Section 21(g)(ii)" - For men, age 21-55; crucial for sourcing donor gametes and ensuring donor eligibility; supports independent access for women or commissioning individuals within defined age bands. [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Individual vs. composite age" - A recurrent theme: courts have held age restrictions apply to individuals, not the couple as a unit; a wife within age limit can pursue ART even if husband exceeds his limit, provided consent; this preserves equal access and avoids unconstitutional classification. [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715] [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743] [Beena Wife Of Rajan Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 570]
"Right to reproductive autonomy" - ART Act upholds right to reproductive choices as part of personal liberty, but permits regulatory constraints in service of health, safety, and welfare; age-based classifications are typically upheld if rationally linked to maternal health and child welfare. [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679]
"Constitutional validity" - Multiple judgments uphold Section 21(g) as rational and within legislative remit; burden on challengers to show unreasonableness/arbitrariness; absence of deliberation in Parliament does not automatically invalidate the provision. [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060] [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969] [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Remedial interim relief" - Courts have granted interim relief allowing preservation of donor gametes/sperm for embryos where immediate access is sought; demonstrates balancing of reproductive rights with procedural timelines. [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285] [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Definition of 'Woman' vs. eligibility" - Act defines 'woman' as 21+, but Section 21(g) imposes upper age limits for service; several judgments treat the definition as broader than the eligibility window, creating interpretive tension resolved by preferring Section 21(g) as controlling for eligibility. [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Donor gametes and third-party participation" - Supreme/High Court opinions affirm that ART may involve donor gametes (sperm/oocytes) and embryo transfer independent of commissioning couple age, so long as statutory conditions are met; this supports flexibility in treating infertility with donor material. [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Retrospective application vs. vested rights in surrogacy" - In surrogacy, courts have held that rights vested prior to amendments (e.g., embryo freezing) cannot be retroactively curtailed by later age-limit changes; constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 apply to preserve reproductive autonomy. [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700] [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462] [State of Kerala vs Chancellor Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 1272]
"Interplay with Surrogacy Act and Rules" - Surrogacy Act interacts with ART Act; amendments to Form 2 or rules cannot defeat the substantive rights granted by the statutory regime; courts have stayed amendments when inconsistent with statutory framework. [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462] [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Age limits challenged for women over 50" - Challenges have been mounted against women over 50 seeking ART; lower courts have been asked to consider exceptions; some petitions have been rejected while others have sought to declar unconstitutional the 50-year ceiling for women. Overall trend: sustained scrutiny but many courts have deferred to rational basis justifications. [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325] [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321] [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Donor egg/oocyte access and independence" - Courts recognize that an infertile woman can access ART with donor gametes even where partner ages exceed limits; donor sourcing may occur from donors within statutory donor-age bands, enabling treatment for eligible recipients. [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748] [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Remedial directives for hospitals/clinics" - Courts frequently direct hospitals/clinics to proceed with ART where permissible, including ordering affidavits on risk/benefit and mandating compliance with statutory age criteria; delays or refusals raise potential negligence concerns. [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285] [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Maternity/parental rights context" - ART-related decisions interact with broader reproductive rights, including maternity leave, parental guardianship, and rights of commissioning parents; high courts have urged beneficial interpretation to support social justice and motherhood dignity. [01100066180] [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Enforcement mechanism" - The Act contemplates National Board/National Registry and State Boards; Rulemaking powers authorize detailed procedural standards for clinics/banks, eligibility criteria, donor screening, insurance, and record-keeping. [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439] [Sudha Mathesan vs Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Rep. by its Chairman, Coimbatore Medical College of Hospital - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75229]
"Preservation of child welfare" - Surrogacy-related jurisprudence emphasizes welfare of the child as paramount; age-based eligibility rules are scrutinized for their impact on the child's welfare and the right to parental care. [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361] [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Penalties and compliance framework" - The Act includes offences and penalties for non-compliance; regulatory oversight aims to curb malpractices in ART and surrogacy, ensuring ethical handling of gametes/embryos and donor rights.
"Policy and transitional concerns" - National guidelines and parliamentary reports shaped the ART regime; scholars emphasize need for careful policy evolution, transitional provisions, and stakeholder consultation to address evolving bioethics and technology. [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969] [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
Note: Citations use square brackets referencing the provided sources. Where a point required is not supported by the sources given, it has been omitted.
The National Board shall exercise and discharge the following powers and functions, namely:--
(a) to advise the Central Government on policy matters relating to the assisted reproductive technology;
(b) to review and monitor the implementation of the Act, rules and regulations made thereunder and recommend to the Central Government, any suitable changes therein;
(c) to lay down code of conduct to be observed by persons working at clinics and banks, to set the minimum standards of physical infrastructure, laboratory and diagnostic equipment and expert manpower to be employed by clinics and banks;
(d) to oversee the performance of various bodies constituted under this Act and take appropriate steps to ensure their effective performance;
(e) to supervise the functioning of the National Registry and liaison with the State Boards
The State Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to be constituted under sub-section (1) of section 24 of the Surrogacy Act shall be the State Board for the purposes of this Act.
Legal Comments
"Key Theme" - Section 6 context not provided in sources; focus available on Section 21(g) and related provisions in ART Act 2021 rather than Section 6. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Constitutional Validity" - Section 6 challenged; court holds age-based ART restrictions rationally linked to maternal health and child welfare; rights to reproductive choices are protected but not absolute and may be regulated for welfare purposes. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Personal Liberty Scope" - Right to reproductive choices is part of personal liberty, but not absolute; permissible to regulate for social welfare/public health. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Burden of Proof" - Burden on challengers to show unconstitutionality; age-based classifications upheld if rational. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Individual vs Composite Age" - Several judgments hold age restrictions apply to individuals, not to couples collectively; wife can pursue ART independently if within age band, subject to spouse’s consent. - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Composite vs Separate Age Criteria" - Courts deem composite (couple-based) age limits unconstitutional; the Act treats men and women as distinct entities for ART eligibility. - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679]
"Right to Life and Reproductive Rights" - Refusal to treat based on husband’s age infringes wife’s right to life/reproductive access; emphasizes individual age-based eligibility and equal treatment. - [Sajitha Abdul Nazar Wife Of Abdul Nazer P Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 344], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Interim Relief and Case-by-Case Evaluation" - In cases where health/medical factors justify exceptional considerations, courts have directed interim relief (e.g., sperm collection/donor gametes) while constitutionality is adjudicated; emphasizes medical evidence. - [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Donor Gametes and Independent Access" - Several judgments confirm ART services may involve donor gametes; donor sourcing permitted under Acts; eligibility for the recipient remains within statutory age brackets. - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Definition vs Age Limitation Tension" - Definitions of 'Woman' (Section 2(u)) do not expressly cap upper age, but Section 21(g) imposes age windows; courts have held Section 21(g) to prevail over broad definitional scope in limiting access. - [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Retrospective Application in Surrogacy" - Courts have held age restrictions and surrogacy rules cannot be applied retroactively to prerules embankments (e.g., embryo/embryo freezing contexts); vest rights recognized under Article 21. - [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Surrogacy vs ART interplay" - The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act and ART Act operate with aligned goals; courts have stayed amendments that conflict with main Acts and ensured eligibility certificates for surrogacy where right to reproductive autonomy is implicated. - [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462], [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Medical Board and Safety Concerns" - Where hospitals refused treatment due to age without medical board evaluation, courts have mandated formation of medical review or affidavits on safety; safety concerns frame rather than negate rights. - [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Guardianship/Best Interest in Surrogacy" - Surrogacy guardianship and custody matters prioritize child's best interests; courts can recognize guardianship arrangements to facilitate cross-border travel where necessary. - [Master Eric Thind VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2486]
"Equality and Equal Protection" - Equal protection considerations reiterate that the Act should not create inequitable classifications between married and single women; independent eligibility for ART supports equal access. - [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Definition of 'Gamete Donor' and Donor Limitations" - ART Act allows sourcing/donation by banks with restrictions (one donor cannot supply to more than one commissioning couple; donor age bands for donors are set). - [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Remedial Ordering and Relief Scope" - Courts typically direct hospitals to process applications or issue eligibility certificates if within statutory framework; non-compliance can be addressed by mandamus. - [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Legislative Intent and Parliamentary Debates" - Parliament’s recorded debates show limited discussion on age factor; courts still interpret and apply the Act to balance reproductive rights with health/societal welfare. - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Section 21(g) – Specific Subsections" - Sub-section (i) allows women 21-50; Sub-section (ii) allows men 21-55; courts emphasize separate age criteria for recipients vs donors and against composite age restrictions. - [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Interplay with Other Statutes" - ART Act interacts with Surrogacy Act, PCPNDT guidelines, and national guidelines; courts consider cross-statutory consistency and medical ethics. - [Sudha Mathesan vs Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Rep. by its Chairman, Coimbatore Medical College of Hospital - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75229], [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Constitutional Remedies and Relief Timing" - Timely intervention is critical due to reproductive timelines; interim orders can preserve rights pending final determination. - [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
"Writ Jurisdiction and Scope in ART Context" - Writ petitions under Article 226 allow scrutiny of statutory validity and enforcement of ART rights, with Supreme/High Courts explaining the procedural path. - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Impact on Public Health Policy" - ART Act regulatory framework reflects balancing of patient welfare, safety, ethical standards, and accessibility; courts defer to legislative policy while safeguarding fundamental rights. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
Note: The above bullet points synthesize concise legal commentary on Section 6 in light of the provided sources, focusing on age-based eligibility, individual versus composite age considerations, donor/embryo dynamics, surrogacy interplay, and constitutional rights as reflected in the cited judgments and material. References use square brackets with source identifiers as requested.
Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the provisions of the Surrogacy Act relating to--
(i) constitution of the State Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board;
(ii) composition of the State Board;
(iii) term of office of members of the State Board;
(iv) meetings of the State Board;
(v) vacancies, etc., not to invalidate proceedings of the State Board;
(vi) disqualifications for appointment as member of the State Board;
(vii) temporary association of persons with the State Board for particular purposes;
(viii) authentication of orders and other instruments of the State Board; and
(ix) eligibility of member of the State Board for re-appointment,
shall,
Legal Comments- "Section 7" - [ART Act 2021] - The provided sources do not include any facts or provisions specific to Section 7 of the Act. No summary can be given for this section without a referenced text. - [Source: none]- "Introductory aim of ART Act" - ART Act regulates and supervises ART clinics/banks to prevent misuse and safeguard reproductive health; foundational purpose supports case-by-case health assessments in sensitive cases. - [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]- "Individual age applicability principle" - Age restrictions under Section 21(g) apply to individuals, not as a composite couple criterion; this underpins judgments allowing a spouse to pursue ART within her/his own age limit with partner’s consent. - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]- "Constitutional frame – Articles 14 & 21" - Court tends to uphold rational classifications in ART age rules, balancing personal liberty with maternal/child welfare; burden on challengers to show irrationality. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]- "Equality-in-access rationale" - Several decisions treat men and women as distinct legal entities under ART Act, preventing unconstitutional classifications based on marital status or spousal age. - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]- "Retrospective/vestigial rights in surrogacy" - For surrogacy, courts have protected rights accrued before amendments; age limits imposed post-embryo freezing cannot be retroactively applied to preserve reproductive autonomy. - [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]- "Donor gametes permissibility" - Courts have allowed use of donor gametes where one partner's age is within the permissible bracket, recognizing non-composite eligibility and enabling ART for the eligible partner. - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969]- "Interim relief in ART disputes" - Courts frequently grant interim relief to preserve reproductive possibilities (e.g., sperm collection, embryo preparation) while constitutional challenges proceed. - [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]- "Role of medical boards and safety considerations" - When age restrictions are invoked, courts may require medical boards to assess safety; hospital non-compliance can raise negligence concerns. - [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]- "Donor eligibility rules under Rules" - Rules implementing ART Act (2022) emphasize written informed consent and formalities; donor age ranges affect sourcing, storage, and permissible usage. - [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]- "Guardian/parenthood implications in surrogacy" - Indian courts prioritize child welfare and rights of surrogate/commissioning parents; guardianship and travel rights may hinge on ART/Surrogacy Acts. - [Master Eric Thind VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2486]- "Surrogacy Act interplay with ART Act" - Where rules amend Form 2 or eligibility for gestational surrogacy, courts stay amendments that contradict main statutes, ensuring processual fairness. - [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462]- "Definition scope for 'woman' vs. 'intending woman' in surrogacy context" - In ART/Surrogacy jurisprudence, definitions can be construed to protect reproductive rights, while aligning with specific age brackets for procedures. - [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]- "Constitutional scrutiny standard" - Section 21(g) challenges have been considered under Article 14 (equal protection) and Article 21 (reproductive/autonomy rights); courts often uphold rational legislative choices but invite central authorities to consider reforms. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]- "Donor gamete framework and section 24/27 provisions" - ART Act contemplates donor sourcing, registration, and multiple safeguards; practical application hinges on Section 27 and related regulatory rules. - [PRABHAT TANDON VS DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, U. P. KANPUR - 1999 0 Supreme(All) 1579], [Prin. /Chief Medical Superintendent Saraswati Medical College Unnao VS Mohammad Shakir Hussain - 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1158]- "Definition of 'commissioning couple' and 'recipient' distinction" - Courts sometimes interpret Section 2(e) and 21(g) to allow independent access by the individual in the couple, with donor assistance as needed; this underpins access where one partner qualifies. - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [01500056]- "Impact on unmarried vs. married applicants" - The jurisprudence consistently argues against treating married and single applicants differently in ways that violate equal protection, focusing on individual eligibility. - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]- "Remedial/advisory role of National Board" - Section 5 and related provisions empower boards to advise policy; inter-agency dialogue is encouraged to address evolving ART ethics and safety considerations. - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]- "Maternity leave and parenting rights in surrogacy/ART" - Related domestic welfare issues (e.g., maternity leave) have been recognized by courts as compatible with reproductive rights when interpreted benevolently under statutory frameworks. - [Chanda Keswani W/o Shri Bhupesh Datwani VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1357]- "Citizenship and birth origin in surrogacy contexts" - Surrogacy births and citizenship issues are addressed with reference to broader statutes, highlighting the intersection of ART with citizenship and passport processes. - [JAN BALAZ VS ANAND MUNICIPALITY - 2009 0 Supreme(Guj) 609]- "Interplay with other regulatory regimes" - ART Act operates with overlap with Surrogacy Act; courts assess consistency to prevent conflicts between donor/embryo provisions and guardianship/child welfare principles. - [XXXX, Wife of XXXX VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 608], [Sri Muthukumaran Medical College Hospital & Research Institute, Rep. by Managing Trustee, Gomathi Ammal Chennai VS Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 2273]- "Compliance and affidavit duties" - The Rules require affidavits and insured donor arrangements, reflecting robust compliance culture in ART procedures. - [Sudha Mathesan vs Authorisation Committee (Transplantation), Rep. by its Chairman, Coimbatore Medical College of Hospital - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75229]- "Concluding practical takeaway" - The jurisprudence shows a trend toward upholding individual eligibility within ART while safeguarding health, autonomy, equality, and child welfare; Section 7, though not expressly addressed in provided excerpts, should harmonize with these principles and focus on procedural safeguards, health-based case-by-case evaluation, and alignment with surrogacy-related reforms. - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462]
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, the State Board shall have the responsibility to follow the policies and plans laid by the National Board for clinics and banks in the State.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in sub-section (1), the State Board, taking into account the recommendations, policies and regulations of the National Board, shall--
(a) co-ordinate the enforcement and implementation of the policies and guidelines for assisted reproduction; and
(b) such other powers and functions as may be prescribed.
(3) In the exercise of its functions under this Act, the State Board shall give such directions or pass such orders as directed by the National Board.
The Central Government may, within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of this Act, by notification, establish for the purposes of this Act and Surrogacy Act, a Registry to be called the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Registry.
The National Registry referred to in section 9 shall consist of such scientific, technical, administrative and supportive staff and the terms and conditions of their service shall be such as may be prescribed.
The National Registry shall discharge the following functions, namely:--
(a) it shall act as a central database in the country through which the details of all the clinics and banks of the country including nature and types of services provided by them, outcome of the services and other relevant information shall be obtained on regular basis;
(b) it shall assist the National Board in its functioning by providing the data generated from the central database of the Registry;
(c) the data generated from the National Registry shall be utilised by the National Board for making policies, guidelines and shall help in identifying new research areas and conducting research in the area of assisted reproduction and other related fields in the country; and
(d) such other functions as may be prescribed.
(1) The Central Government shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of this Act, by notification, appoint one or more appropriate assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy authorities for each of the Union territories for the purposes of this Act and the Surrogacy Act.
(2) The State Government shall, within a period of ninety days from the date of commencement of this Act, by notification, appoint one or more appropriate assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy authorities for the whole or any part of the State for the purposes of this Act and the Surrogacy Act.
(3) The appropriate authority, under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall,--
(a) when appointed for the whole of the State or the Union territory, consist of--
(i) an officer of or above the rank of the Joint Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare
The appropriate authority shall discharge the following functions, namely:--
(a) to grant, suspend or cancel registration of a clinic or bank;
(b) to enforce the standards to be fulfilled by the clinic or bank;
(c) to investigate complaints of breach of the provisions of this Act, rules and regulations made thereunder and take legal action as per provisions of this Act;
(d) to take appropriate legal action against the misuse of assisted reproductive technology by any person and also to initiate independent investigations in such matter;
(e) to supervise the implementation of the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder;
(f) to recommend to the National Board and State Boards about the modifications required in the rules and regulations in accordance with changes in techn
(1) The appropriate authority shall exercise the powers in respect of the following matters, namely:--
(a) summoning of any person who is in possession of any information relating to violation of the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder;
(b) production of any document or material object relating to clause (a);
(c) searching of any place suspected to be violating the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder; and
(d) such other powers as may be prescribed.
(2) The appropriate authority shall maintain the details of registration of assisted reproductive technology clinics and banks, cancellation of registration, renewal of registration, grant of certificates to the commissioning couple and woman or any other matter pertaining to grant of licence and the like of the cli
(1) No person shall establish any clinic or bank for undertaking assisted reproductive technology or to render assisted reproductive technology procedures in any form unless such clinic or bank is duly registered under this Act.
(2) Every application for registration under sub-section (1) shall be made to the National Registry through the appropriate assisted reproductive technology and surrogacy authority in such form, manner and shall be accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed.
(3) Every clinic or bank which is conducting assisted reproductive technology, partly or exclusively shall, within a period of sixty days from the date of establishment of the National Registry, apply for registration:
Provided that such clinics and banks shall cease to conduct any such counselling or procedures on the expiry of six months from the date of commencement of this Act, unless such cl
(1) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1) of section 15, the appropriate authority shall within a period of thirty days--
(i) grant registration subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder, and provide a registration number to the applicant; or
(ii) reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing, if such application does not conform to the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder:
Provided that no application shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
(2) If the appropriate authority fails to grant the registration or reject the application, as the case may be, as provided under sub-section (1), the appropriate authority shall, within a period of seven days from the expiry of the said period of thirty da
The registration granted under section 16, may be renewed for a further period of five years by the appropriate authority, on an application made by the applicant, under such conditions, in such form and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed:
Provided that no application for renewal of registration shall be rejected without giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant.
(1) The appropriate authority may on receipt of a complaint, issue a notice to the clinic or bank to show cause as to why its registration should not be suspended or cancelled for the reasons mentioned in the notice.
(2) If after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the clinic or bank, the appropriate authority is satisfied that there has been a breach of the provision of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or if the data obtained from them periodically do not satisfy the provisions of this Act, the rules and regulations made thereunder, it may, without prejudice to any criminal action, suspend its registration for such period as it may deem fit or cancel its registration.
(3) On cancellation of registration, a copy of the cancellation letter shall be sent to the respective State Board and accordingly the State Board shall cancel the registration of such clinics and banks.
The clinic or bank or the commissioning couple or the woman may, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the communication relating to order of rejection of application, suspension or cancellation of registration passed by the appropriate authority under section 16 or section 18, prefer an appeal against such order to--
(a) the State Government, where the appeal is against the order of the appropriate authority of a State;
(b) the Central Government, where the appeal is against the order of the appropriated authority of a Union territory,
in such manner as may be prescribed.
Legal Comments
"Purpose" - ART Act aims to regulate ART clinics/banks to prevent misuse and safeguard reproductive health; Section 21(g) sets age eligibility windows for recipients and donors - [Source: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Individual eligibility" - Section 21(g) applies to an individual (woman or man) rather than mandating a composite eligibility for the commissioning couple; court decisions hold that a wife can pursue ART independently of her husband's age if she falls within her own age bracket - [Sources: Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Gender distinction" - Act treats men and women as distinct legal entities; no unconstitutional classification when considering individual age; this underpins access for single women or wives when the other spouse is older - [Sources: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Beena Wife Of Rajan Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 570]
"Right to life and reproductive autonomy" - Refusal to treat based on a spouse’s age infringes the petitioner’s right to life/reproductive autonomy; courts repeatedly characterize access to ART as part of personal liberty (Article 21) when within statutory limits - [Sources: BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Constitutional validity of age limits" - Several constitutional challenges to Section 21(g) argued upper age limits; majority findings uphold rational basis linked to maternal health/child welfare; burden on challengers to show unconstitutionality; deference to legislative policy in balancing welfare and autonomy - [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Composite vs individual eligibility debate" - Key jurisprudence holds there is no composite age criterion for commissioning couples; a woman under 50 may access ART even if her partner is above the limit, provided consent/eligibility conditions are met - [Sources: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969]
"Donor gametes and third-party involvement" - Several petitions validate use of donor gametes/donor eggs when needed; ART Act contemplates donor donors and gametes (Sections 27, 22) and does not bar such arrangements when within statutory framework - [Sources: Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Retrospective/applicability concerns in surrogacy" - For surrogacy, amendments post-embryo freezing cannot be applied retroactively to vested reproductive rights; constitutional protections under Articles 14 and 21 preserved - [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Interim relief and medical safety" - Courts may grant interim relief for ART in exceptional cases (e.g., preservation of sperm, embryo preparation) while constitutional questions are adjudicated; emphasizes patient welfare and safety obligations of clinics - [Sources: Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Definition of 'Woman' vs Section 21(g)" - While Section 2(u) defines 'Woman' broadly (21+), Section 21(g) prescribes age brackets (21-50 for women; 21-55 for men); some decisions treat 21-50 as a right-bearing window, others discuss broader interpretation; inconsistency noted in some petitions, but court tends to give primacy to Section 21(g) specifics - [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Donor anonymity and data regimes" - Regulation 27 and Rule 42 outline donor screening, privacy, and record-keeping; these frameworks support ethical procurement of gametes; courts stress regulatory compliance and rights of donors/receivers - [Sources: Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Rights vs restrictions for surrogacy after embryo freezing" - Amendments to Form 2 and Rules cannot abridge vested rights; courts stay amendments conflicting with Act’s main provisions, ensuring eligibility certificates; balance of child welfare and autonomy - [Sources: V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462; Master Eric Thind VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2486]
"Impact on unmarried/single women" - ART Act’s age-based restrictions must not create unconstitutional classifications between married and single women; several judgments emphasize equal treatment and independent eligibility for single women where applicable - [Sources: Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Sourcing of gametes" - Section 27 permits sourcing of gametes from donors; banks must comply with age criteria for donors and recipients; this supports use of donor material when the commissioning couple cannot provide gametes - [Sources: Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Maternal health focus" - Age restrictions rationally linked to maternal health and fetal welfare; classifications upheld as proportionate safeguards advancing Article 21 protections - [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Equality and non-discrimination" - Courts have flagged potential equal protection concerns where age-based rules might disproportionately affect married women; however, most decisions uphold ART Act provisions when tied to health and safety considerations - [Sources: BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Scope of Section 21(g)" - Section 21(g) governs eligibility for ART services and donor arrangements; it does not authorize or forbid surrogacy directly but interacts with Surrogacy Act provisions; tribunals consider cross-statutory implications - [Sources: Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Remedial framework for challenges" - When Section 21(g) is challenged, courts often request affidavits/objections from respondents and may grant interim relief; final judgments hinge on constitutional tests (Articles 14 and 21) and rational basis scrutiny - [Sources: Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Surrogacy-specific age caps" - Surrogacy Act imposes its own age bands (e.g., 23-50 for females; 26-55 for males) with discussions on retrospective applicability to pre-existing embryo/surrogacy arrangements; courts have held these limits to be subject to constitutional scrutiny and protective of child welfare - [Sources: Sajithanand S. @ Sajitha Manoharan, W/o. Lekshmanan Manoharan vs Union of India, Ministry of Health And Family Welfare - 2026 0 Supreme(Ker) 369; Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; Rajitha P.V. W/O Santhosh M. vs Union of India Rep. By Its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 123]
"Guardian/parenthood rights in surrogacy" - Guardianship and welfare-focused judgments emphasize the child’s best interests; rights of intended parents are balanced against surrogate-protective measures; courts intervene to ensure essentiality and welfare certificates are issued timely - [Sources: Master Eric Thind VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2486; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Constitutional prompting for amendments" - Where gaps are identified (e.g., transitional provisions or donor/gestational surrogacy rules), courts urge path for amendments via National Board policy considerations; legislative bodies retain final authority to refine age criteria - [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
Note: The citations above reference the provided source set using square brackets after each point. Where a point concerns a general theme or widely recurring principle across the cited cases, the point is attributed to multiple sources accordingly. If a point could not be supported by the supplied sources, it has been intentionally omitted.
The National Board, the National Registry and the State Board shall have the power to,--
(i) inspect, any premises relating to assisted reproductive technology; or
(ii) call for any document or material,
in exercise of their powers and discharge of their functions.
The clinics and banks shall perform the following duties, namely:--
(a) the clinics and banks shall ensure that commissioning couple, woman and donors of gametes are eligible to avail the assisted reproductive technology procedures subject to such criteria as may be prescribed;
(b) the clinics shall obtain donor gametes from the banks and such banks shall ensure that the donor has been medically tested for such diseases as may be prescribed;
(c) the clinics shall--
(i) provide professional counselling to commissioning couple and woman about all the implications and chances of success of assisted reproductive technology procedures in the clinic;
(ii) inform the commissioning couple and woman of the advantages, disadvantages and cost of the procedures, their medical side effects, risks including the risk of multiple pregnancy;
(1) The clinic shall not perform any treatment or procedure without--
(a) the written informed consent of all the parties seeking assisted reproductive technology;
(b) an insurance coverage of such amount as may be prescribed for a period of twelve months in favour of the oocyte donor by the commissioning couple or woman from an insurance company or an agent recognised by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority established under the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999).
(2) The clinics and banks shall not cryo-preserve any human embryos or gamete, without specific instructions and consent in writing from all the parties seeking assisted reproductive technology, in case of death or incapacity of any of the parties.
(3) The clinic shall not use any human reproductive material, except in accor
The duties of clinics and banks while keeping the records relating to such clinics and banks are as under:--
(a) all clinics and banks shall maintain detailed records of all donor's oocytes, sperm or embryos used or unused, the manner and technique of their use in such manner as may be prescribed;
(b) all clinics and banks shall, as and when the National Registry is established, submit by online,--
(i) all information available with them in regard to progress of the commissioning couple or woman; and
(ii) information about number of donors (sperm and oocyte), screened, maintained and supplied and the like to the National Registry within a period of one month from the date of receipt of such information;
(c) the records maintained under clause (a) shall be maintained for at least a period of ten years, upon the expiry of whic
While using human gametes and embryos, the duties to be performed by the clinics and banks shall be as under:--
(a) the clinics shall retrieve oocytes in such manner as may be specified by regulations;
(b) not more than three oocytes or embryos may be placed in the uterus of a woman during the treatment cycle in such manner as may be specified by regulations;
(c) a woman shall not be treated with gametes or embryos derived from more than one man or woman during any one treatment cycle;
(d) a clinic shall never mix semen from two individuals for the procedures specified under this Act;
(e) the embryos shall not be split and used for twinning to increase the number of available embryos;
(f) the collection of gametes posthumously shall be done only if prior consent of the commissioning couple is avail
(1) The Pre-implantation Genetic testing shall be used to screen the human embryo for known, pre-existing, heritable or genetic diseases only.
(2) The donation of an embryo after Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis to an approved research laboratory for research purposes shall be done only---
(a) with the approval of the commissioning couple or woman; and
(b) when the embryo suffers from pre-existing, heritable, life-threatening or genetic diseases.
(3) The National Board may lay down such other conditions as it deems fit in the interests of the Pre-implantation Genetic testing.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression--
(i) "Pre-implantation Genetic Diagnosis" means the genetic diagnosis when one or both genetic parents has a known genetic abnormality and testing is performed
(1) Subject to the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994), the clinic shall not offer to provide a couple or woman with a child of a pre-determined sex.
(2) It is prohibited for anyone to do any act, at any stage, to determine the sex of the child to be born through the process of assisted reproductive technology to separate, or yield fractions enriched in sperm of X or Y variations.
(3) A person shall not knowingly provide, prescribe or administer anything that shall ensure or increase the probability that an embryo shall be of a particular sex, or that shall identify the sex of an in-vitro embryo, except to diagnose, prevent or treat a sex-linked disorder or disease.
Legal Comments
"Section 21(g) – Age eligibility window – Summary of provision" - Section 21(g) prescribes ART eligibility for a woman 21-50 and a man 21-55; it creates a duty for clinics/banks to apply ART to individuals within these age ranges - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Constitutional validity – Right to reproductive autonomy" - Courts have found that age-based restrictions engage reproductive choices under Article 21 but may be upheld if rational and tied to health/welfare; challenges often argue violation of Article 14/21 but are typically rejected where rational nexus is shown - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
"Individual vs. composite age criterion – Key jurisprudence" - A dominant line of decisions holds that age limits apply to individuals, not to couples collectively; thus a wife may access ART if she individually meets the age criterion and consents, independent of her husband’s age - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Effect on marital equality – Equal protection concerns" - Several judgments strike down composite age restrictions as unconstitutional classifications arising from marital status, reinforcing equal access to ART for married and single women when individual eligibility is met - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969]
"Retrospective application and vested rights in surrogacy/ART" - Courts have held that restrictions introduced post-embryo freezing or post-initiation should not automatically defeat vested reproductive rights; retrospection can be impermissible where it undermines established expectations - [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Donor gametes and third-party contributions – ART Act scope" - Several petitions approve use of donor gametes/third-party donors where age restrictions permit, clarifying that Section 21(g) governs recipient eligibility, not donor availability, within prescribed limits - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748], [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Definition vs. practical effect – 'Woman' definition vs. 21-50 window" - There is a debate about whether the broad definition of 'Woman' (Section 2(u)) without an upper age cap clashes with Section 21(g)’s upper limit; courts have generally treated Section 21(g) as controlling for eligibility in practice - [Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
"Surrogacy interplay – ART Act and Surrogacy Act coherence" - In surrogacy-related petitions, courts emphasize that ART and Surrogacy regulations together regulate reproductive choices; amendments must align with main Acts to avoid undermining rights under Article 21 - [V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462], [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Rights to access vs. medical risk – Case-by-case health considerations" - When health risks are significant, courts have urged case-by-case medical evaluation and caution against blanket denial solely on age, recognizing health as a determinant in eligibility - [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Composite age criteria – Illustrative outcomes" - Several petitions have succeeded in permitting a petitioner to access ART services where only one partner’s age falls within the allowed bracket, reinforcing individual-based eligibility and consent requirements - [Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743], [Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Role of consent – Donor/recipient dynamics" - Court analyses frequently underscore that consent of the partnering spouse or commissioning individual, and donor availability, shape eligibility and ability to proceed with ART within statutory windows - [BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715], [Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Policy framing and legislative contemplation – Parliamentary debates" - Courts note limited legislative discussion on age in ART Act, yet defer to legislature’s prerogative on policy; absence of debate does not automatically render provisions unconstitutional - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Gender-neutral interpretation – Avoiding discrimination" - The jurisprudence tends toward treating men and women as distinct recipients under ART Act; however, discrimination based on marital status or spousal age is scrutinized, with several decisions striking down blanket composite limits - [Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969], [Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680]
"Parties’ jurisdiction and remedies – Interim relief patterns" - In several high-stake ART petitions, courts grant interim relief to preserve reproductive options (e.g., sperm/embryo preservation) while full constitutional questions are resolved - [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285], [Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
"Donor oocytes and age limits – Bank sourcing rules" - The ART Act requires age boundaries for donors (e.g., 23-35 for oocytes; 21-55 for sperm donors) and restricts donor sources; clinics must comply with these specifications when implementing ART - [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Retaining autonomy after surrogacy rule changes" - Updates to surrogacy rules post-embryo freezing can be non-retroactive to protect intending parents’ rights, aligning with Article 21 guarantees while maintaining safeguards - [Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Constitutional posture – Article 14 vs. 21 bend" - The majority view holds Section 21(g) is constitutionally tenable when anchored to health and welfare considerations, with strict scrutiny applied to classifications that fail rational basis tests - [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Sourcing of gametes – Composite vs. individual eligibility" - ART Act Section 27 permits donor gamete sourcing under regulatory rules; courts interpret this to support ART access for eligible individuals even if the other spouse is ineligible due to age - [Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325], [Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Policy suggestions from courts – Need for amendments" - Several judgments hint that the National Board/central government should consider amendments to age limits or transitional provisions to better reflect evolving medical evidence and reproductive rights - [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969], [Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Overall takeaway on Section 26" - The provided sources largely discuss Section 21(g) (not Section 26) but collectively illustrate the judiciary’s stance toward ART regulation: age-based eligibility is permissible with rational health justifications, individual-based access favored, and ongoing calls for policy refinement to reconcile reproductive rights with safety concerns - [Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439], [Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060], [Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
(1) The screening of gamete donors, the collection, screening and storage of semen; and provision of oocyte donor, shall be done only by a bank registered as an independent entity under the provisions of this Act.
(2) The banks shall--
(a) obtain semen from males between twenty-one years of age and fifty-five years of age, both inclusive;
(b) obtain oocytes from females between twenty-three years of age and thirty-five years of age; and
(c) examine the donors for such diseases, as may be prescribed.
(3) A bank shall not supply the sperm or oocyte of a single donor to more than one commissioning couple.
(4) An oocyte donor shall donate oocytes only once in her life and not more than seven oocyte shall be retrieved from the oocyte donor.
(5) All unused oocytes shall be pres
(1) The standards for the storage and handling of gametes, gonadal tissues and human embryos in respect of their security, recording and identification shall be such as may be prescribed.
(2) The gamete of a donor or embryo shall be stored for a period of not more than ten years and at the end of such period such gamete or embryo shall be allowed to perish or be donated to a research organisations registered under this Act for research purposes with the consent of the commissioning couple or individual, in such manner as may be prescribed.
The sale, transfer or use of gametes, zygotes and embryos, or any part thereof or information related thereto, directly or indirectly to any party within or outside India shall be prohibited except in the case of transfer of own gametes and embryos for personal use with the permission of the National Board.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the expression "zygote" means the fertilised oocyte prior to the first cell division.
(1) The use of any human gametes and embryos or their transfer to any country outside India for research shall be absolutely prohibited.
(2) The research on human gamete or embryo within India shall be performed in such manner as may be prescribed.
(1) The child born through assisted reproductive technology shall be deemed to be a biological child of the commissioning couple and the said child shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges available to a natural child only from the commissioning couple under any law for the time being in force.
(2) A donor shall relinquish all parental rights over the child or children which may be born from his or her gamete.
(1) The clinic, or bank or agent thereof, shall not issue, publish, distribute, communicate or cause to be issued, published, distributed or communicated any advertisement in any manner including internet, regarding facilities of sex selective assisted reproductive technology.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but may extend to ten years or with fine which shall not be less than ten lakh rupees but may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees or with both.
Legal Comments
"Introduction" - The material concerns the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (ART Act) and related Surrogacy laws, focusing on Section 21(g) (age-based eligibility for ART services) and broader statutory framework governing ART clinics/banks, surrogacy, and reproductive rights in India. References include multiple judgments and commentary on age limits, individual rights vs. couple-based restrictions, and constitutional validity. [Source: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"What does Section Says" - Section 21(g) prescribes age-based eligibility for ART services: women 21-50 years and men 21-55 years to be eligible for ART procedures (subject to other prescribed criteria). The Act defines terms such as "woman," "commissioning couple," and sets duties on clinics/banks to provide services within those limits. The Surrogacy Act interacts with ART standards, but Section 21(g) specifically governs ART access. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743;
"Essential ingredients" - Core elements: (i) ART Act 2021 establishing regulatory board/registration for clinics and banks; (ii) Section 21(g) age limits; (iii) definition of "woman" (21+ with no explicit upper cap in 2(u) but upper age in 21(g)); (iv) rights to reproductive autonomy balanced against health/public welfare; (v) remedies for challenges via writ petitions; (vi) donor gametes and third-party arrangements under Sections 22, 27, etc. [Sources: Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Scope of Section" - Section 21(g) applies to eligibility for ART services for individuals; court analyses address whether limits apply to individuals or couples (i.e., whether limits on the husband affect the wife’s access). Several decisions interpret Section 21(g) as applying to individuals, not as a composite couple cap, enabling independent access by the spouse if within the age bands. Also, some judgments consider whether definitions (2(u) "woman") allow broader access and how donor gametes interact with the rule. [Sources: Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Punishment for Section" - The provided sources do not discuss penalties specifically for Section 21(g) violations; rather, they focus on constitutional validity, access rights, and interim relief. The Act itself includes offences/regulations in other sections (e.g., Section 32 on sex-selective ART, penalties in Chapter V), but Section 21(g) itself is not described as having a separate punishment in the cited materials. Therefore, no specific punishment language for Section 21(g) is included here. [Sources: ; ]
"Legal Comments" - "Gender-neutral access" - The Act treats women as capable of accessing ART independently of a spouse's age, recognizing individual rights within Section 21(g); several judgments note that restricting based on a spouse's age can create unconstitutional classifications under Articles 14 and 21. [Source: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743]
"Legal Comments" - "Individual age-based right" - Courts have held that the age restrictions apply to the individual undergoing ART, not to a couple collectively; the wife can pursue ART with donor gametes when she is within 21-50 (and husband within 21-55 with consent). This preserves reproductive autonomy for women irrespective of male partner's age. [Source: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Legal Comments" - "Constitutional scrutiny" - Section 21(g) has withstood constitutional scrutiny in several judgments, which found the age-limits rationally linked to maternal health and child welfare; however, some petitions argued for exceptions or medical boards, highlighting nuances in health/safety considerations. [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Legal Comments" - "Retrospective application vs. vested rights in surrogacy" - Courts have held that age restrictions introduced post-embryo freezing/surrogacy initiation cannot be retroactively applied to jeopardize vested reproductive rights, preserving autonomy under Article 21. [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Legal Comments" - "Definitions and scope" - The Act defines "woman" (2(u)) with lower bound 21 but without explicit upper bound in the definition; however, Section 21(g) provides the upper bound for treatment, creating a potential interpretive tension; several judgments resolve by giving primacy to the specific Section 21(g) over general definitions. [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
"Legal Comments" - "Composite age vs. individual age approach" - The consistent judicial approach in the provided materials is to treat age limits as individual-based (21-50 for women; 21-55 for men) so that a woman can access ART if her own age fits, even if her partner is older. This supports equal protection and reproductive autonomy. [Sources: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Legal Comments" - "Donor gametes and third-party involvement" - Several cases discuss use of donor gametes, whether for IVF/ART when one partner is ineligible, and whether the Act permits or requires third-party gamete donation; Section 27 sets sourcing limits for donors, with age bands for donors and the need for consent and regulatory compliance. [Sources: Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Legal Comments" - "Right to life and reproductive autonomy" - Courts frequently connect ART access to right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, balancing with health and welfare concerns; refusals based solely on spousal age may infringe the wife’s right to life/reproductive autonomy. [Sources: Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Beena Wife Of Rajan Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 570]
"Legal Comments" - "Writ petitions as enforcement mechanism" - A recurring litigation path involves writ petitions under Article 226/Article 32 to challenge age-based refusals and seek interim relief, including sperm/embryo preservation orders and directing clinics to provide services within statutory bounds. [Sources: Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
"Legal Comments" - "Retrospective rights under Surrogacy Act" - The Surrogacy Act’s age amendments are not to be retroactively applied to those who initiated surrogacy earlier, preserving vested reproductive rights and ensuring consistency with Articles 14 and 21. [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
"Legal Comments" - "Interplay with Surrogacy Regulations" - The ART Act interacts with the Surrogacy Act (2021) and the 2022 Rules; courts have addressed amendments to Form 2 and Form 2-related forms, ensuring consistency with main Acts and that procedural changes do not defeat rights. [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
"Legal Comments" - "Medical Board considerations" - In some cases (e.g., over-50 petitioner), courts have urged medical boards to assess safety and viability; hospital’s failure to form a medical board can raise negligence concerns and affect assessments of constitutionality of age limits. [Sources: Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
"Legal Comments" - "Donor and embryo rights" - The ART framework includes the rights and protections of donors, recipients, and resulting children; the acts provide for the child's rights and clarify parentage; courts emphasize balanced protection for all parties. [Sources: ; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; ]
"Legal Comments" - "Executive/Legislative intent and debates" - Parliamentary reports acknowledge the need for ART regulation; however, there is critique regarding lack of explicit discussion on age factors, which courts have nonetheless deemed permissible under rational-basis review given health/public welfare aims. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Legal Comments" - "Maternity leave and surrogacy context" - High Courts have recognized benefits and social justice implications regarding surrogacy and maternity leave, e.g., commissioning mothers' rights to maternity leave under Rule interpretations, signaling broader social-justice considerations in reproductive law. [Sources: Chanda Keswani W/o Shri Bhupesh Datwani VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1357; X VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1841]
"Legal Comments" - "Policy and regulatory harmonization" - The coherence between ART Act, Surrogacy Act, and subsequent Rules is repeatedly emphasized; courts highlight the need for alignment to avoid conflicting interpretations and to preserve reproductive rights and safety. [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462; Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965]
"Legal Comments" - "Practical guidance for practitioners" - Hospitals/clinics should assess eligibility per Section 21(g), obtain informed consent, and respect individual age criteria, while considering donor/embryo options and medical safety, with regard to interim relief pathways when disputed. [Sources: Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
"Legal Comments" - "Judicial approach to equality" - Several judgments stress equal protection and avoid discriminatory treatment based on marital status; the Act’s structure generally supports individual access, promoting gender equality in reproductive healthcare. [Sources: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi vs Devayani S. W/o Vinod Kumar - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 2952; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
"Legal Comments" - "Future implications" - Ongoing litigation may refine the interpretation of 21(g) regarding donor gametes, surrogacy eligibility, and retrospective applications; the National Board and regulatory bodies are urged to engage in policy-level deliberations to address evolving medical evidence. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
"Source References" - For the above points, representative citations include: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325; Vijaya Kumari S. VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1793; Chanda Keswani W/o Shri Bhupesh Datwani VS State of Rajasthan - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1357; Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(SC) 1046; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361
(1) Any medical geneticist, gynaecologist, registered medical practitioner or any person shall not--
(a) abandon, disown or exploit or cause to be abandoned, disowned or exploited in any form the child or children born through assisted reproductive technology;
(b) sell human embryos or gametes, run an agency, a racket or an organisation for selling, purchasing or trading in human embryos or gametes;
(c) import or help in getting imported in whatsoever manner, the human embryos or human gametes;
(d) exploit the commissioning couple, woman or the gamete donor in any form;
(e) transfer human embryo into a male person or an animal;
(f) sell any human embryo or gamete for the purpose of research; or
(g) use any intermediates to obtain gamete donors or purchase gamete donors.
Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder, for which no penalty has been provided in this Act shall be punishable as per sub-section (2) of section 33.
(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act, save on a complaint made by the National Board or the State Board or by an officer authorised by it.
(2) No court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence punishable under this Act.
Legal Comments
Introduction - ART Regulation Act 2021 regulates ART clinics/banks; Section 21(g) sets age eligibility, with ongoing judicial scrutiny about whether age limits infringe Articles 14/21; multiple judgments address whether age limits are rational and whether they apply to individuals or couples. [Source: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969]
What Section Says - Section 21(g) confines ART services to a woman 21-50 and a man 21-55, as a general duty of clinics/banks; definition of "woman" is 21+ with access to services; other sections define commissioning couples, donors, etc. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715]
Essential ingredients - Core elements: who can seek ART (woman 21-50; man 21-55), whether age applies to individual or couple, duties of clinics/banks to provide services within age bracket, donor/gamete sourcing rules, consent requirements, and rights to reproductive autonomy under Article 21. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462]
Scope of Section - Section 21(g) operates on services actually provided to an individual (not necessarily restricting the other spouse’s eligibility when the other spouse exceeds age, per several judgments); there is debate on retrospective application in surrogacy contexts; ART Act interacts with Surrogacy Act for broader reproductive rights. [Sources: Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
Punishment for Section - Section 35/36 outline cognizance and penalties; general punishments for contravention exist (not all sources specify exact penalties here); regulatory framework contemplates offences for misuse; cases mention penalties and enforcement, but precise punishments are not exhaustively listed in sources provided. [Sources: ; Chandrashekhar Bhimsen Naik vs State of Maharashtra - 2025 0 Supreme(Bom) 1409; ]
Constitutional validity (core jurisprudence) - Indian courts have upheld age-based ART restrictions as rationally linked to maternal health, child welfare; however, several petitions hold that age restrictions apply to individuals, not couples, enabling wives to access ART independent of husband’s age (provided consent); constitutional challenges under Articles 14 and 21 have been pending with interim relief in some cases. [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
Individual vs. composite age criterion - A prominent line of decisions holds that age restrictions apply to the individual seeking ART, not to the couple as a unit; this permits a wife under 50 to proceed even if husband is older; some judgments explicitly treat this as non-discriminatory and consistent with equality. [Sources: Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
Surrogacy interplay - Surrogacy Act interacts with ART Act; amendments to Form 2 and rules have been stayed where inconsistent with main Act; retrospective application of surrogacy age limits has been contested to protect reproductive autonomy; courts have emphasized child welfare and paternal rights consistent with Art 21. [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462; XXXX, Wife of XXXX VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 608; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748]
Rights-based framing - Courts frequently cite Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and reproductive autonomy; some judgments recognize reproductive rights as part of personal liberty but subject to public health and welfare considerations; interim reliefs have sometimes permitted actions (e.g., sperm collection). [Sources: Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
Definitions and scope of "Woman" - Definitions in Section 2(u) do not specify an upper age; later Section 21(g) imposes age limits on recipients; some courts have treated the definition as broad, with Section 21(g) controlling; others discuss potential inconsistency and advocate alignment via rules. [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Sudarsan Mandal VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 1439]
Case outcomes on individual eligibility - Numerous writ petitions succeed where the petitioner’s individual age qualifies under Section 21(g)(i); courts have directed clinics to provide ART to eligible petitioners (wife under 50; donor gametes; etc.). [Sources: Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969; Rukiya P.M. Wife Of Hydru Alias Bava vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 748; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
Health-focused rationality - The courts repeatedly hold that age limits are rationally connected to maternal health and child welfare; the burden lies on challengers to show unreasonableness; international practice varies; some jurisdictions prefer broad age windows or case-by-case medical boards. [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285]
Donor/gamete considerations - Section 27 governs donor sourcing (ages 23-35 for oocytes; 21-55 for sperm; single-donor limits); ART Banks must maintain records and confidentiality; consent and insurance aspects are in Rules (Regulations 2022). [Sources: Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325; Nisha P.p. Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 965; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Mary Josphin Vijila Wife Of George M Vs Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 680; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462]
Retrospective rights in surrogacy/embryo issues - Courts have held that vested rights from embryo freezing or surrogacy initiation prior to enactment may be protected from retrospective age restrictions; essentiality certificates and eligibility remain key. [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; V. Girija VS State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 462]
Procedural access to remedies - Article 226 petitions often succeed or proceed with interim directions; there is emphasis on timely affidavits/oppositions from government to consider constitutional challenges; alternative remedies (appeal) may be available under 53-A/53-B in some contexts. [Sources: Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; K. Veeramani VS T. S. Mani - 2010 0 Supreme(Mad) 5649; Pankaj Rai S/o Krishna Kumar Rai VS Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 210]
Medical board and safety obligations - Courts have mandated medical boards or affidavits to evaluate safety when age-related requests are made; hospital failures to form medical boards can lead to admonition or negligence in some cases. [Sources: Silbania Lyngdoh vs Union of India - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 325]
Public policy and equality - Several judgments stress equal protection: treating couples as units with composite age limits would create unconstitutional classifications; thus, individual age-based access is favored to preserve reproductive equality. [Sources: Jessy Joy Wife Of Joy Vs The Union Of India - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 679; Sahina P. Wife Of Shaik Abdul Salim vs Union of India Represented by its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 743; BINI P WIFE OF SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 715; Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060]
Practical guidance for practitioners - When advising patients: verify age eligibility under 21-50 for women; consider donor gametes if needed; ensure donor/recipient consents; prepare for possible medical assessments; be aware of potential interim reliefs or constitutional challenges in pipeline. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Vanaja Wife Of Raveendran Vs Union Of India - 2025 Supreme(KER) 969; Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361]
References to legislative history and debates - Parliament's 129th report and 2021 Act press coverage indicate intent to regulate ART clinics and ensure safety; some gaps in age-factor deliberation noted by courts but not deemed fatal to constitutionality. [Sources: Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969; Nandini K VS Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi - 2022 0 Supreme(Ker) 969 (Point about legislative debates); Silbania Lyngdoh W/o Wandonbok Jyrwa vs Union of India through the Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 321]
Key caution for surrogacy-specific actions - Age limits in surrogacy (Section 4(iii)(c)(I)) have been contested; retrospective application deemed problematic; courts favor protecting pre-enactment rights to reproductive autonomy. [Sources: Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700; Rajitha P.V. W/O Santhosh M. vs Union of India Rep. By Its Secretary, New Delhi - 2025 0 Supreme(Ker) 123; XXXX, Wife of XXXX VS Union Of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 608]
Meta conclusion - Section 21(g) of ART Act raises ongoing constitutional questions, but a substantial body of case law supports its rationality and emphasizes individual age-based eligibility, while safeguarding reproductive rights within health/public welfare boundaries; judicial caution favors case-by-case medical evaluation and respect for vested rights in surrogacy/ART processes initiated before changes. [Sources: Pankaj Kumar Das, Son Of Madhu Ram Das vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare Department - 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 2060; Saswati Mohury VS Union of India - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1285; Kavitha Anand vs State of Tamil Nadu - 2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 3361; Renuga Anandkumar vs Union of India, rep. By its Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Department - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70700]
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), all the offences under this Act shall be cognizable and bailable.
(1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by any clinic or bank, the executive head of such clinic or bank shall be deemed to be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly unless he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by any clinic or bank and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer, other than the executive head of the clinic or bank, such officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
(1) The Central Government may, from time to time issue to the National Board, the National Registry and the appropriate authority with respect to the Union territory, such directions as it may think necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relation with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the National Board, the National Registry and the appropriate authority shall, in exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may give in writing to it from time to time:
Provided that the National Board shall, as far as practicable, be given an opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under sub-section (1).
(1) The State Government may, from time to time issue to the State Board and to the appropriate authority with respect to the State Government such directions as it may think necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relation with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Act, the State Board and the appropriate authority shall, in exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions under this Act, be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the State Government may give in writing to it from time to time:
Provided that the State Board and the appropriate authority shall, as far as practicable, be given an opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under sub-section (1).
(3) If any dispute arises between the State Gov
(1) If the National Board, the National Registry or the State Board has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed at any facility using assisted reproductive technology, such Board or any officer authorised in this behalf may, subject to such rules as may be prescribed, enter and search at all reasonable times with such assistance, if any, as such Board or officer considers necessary, such facility using assisted reproductive technology and examine any record, register, document, book, pamphlet, advertisement or any other material object found therein and seize the same, if the said Board has reason to believe that it may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act.
(2) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), relating to searches and seizures shall, so far as may be, apply to every search or seizure made under this Act.
No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the Central Government or the State Government or the National Board or the National Registry or the State Board or the appropriate authority or any other officer authorised by the Central Government or the State Government or the National Board or the National Registry or the State Board or the appropriate authority for anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done in pursuance of the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder.
(1) The Central Government may by notification make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for--
(a) the other powers and functions of the National Board under clause (g) of section 5;
(b) the other powers and functions of the State Board under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 8;
(c) the terms of office and other conditions of service of scientific, technical and other employees of the National Registry under section 10;
(d) the other functions of the National Registry under clause (d) of section 11;
(e) the other functions of the appropriate authority under clause (h) of section 13;
(f) the other powers to be exercised by the appropriate authority
(1) The National Board may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, by notification make regulations consistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder to carry out the provisions of the Act;
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for--
(a) the manner of retrieving the oocytes under clause (a) of section 24;
(b) the manner of placing the oocytes or embryos in the uterus of a woman under clause (b) of section 24; and
(c) any other matter which is required to be, specified by regulations or in respect of which provision is to be made by regulations.
Every rule or regulation made and notification issued under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made or issued, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rules or regulations or notifications, as the case may be or both Houses agree that the rules or regulations or notifications, as the case may be, should not be made or issued, such rules or regulations or notifications, as the case may be, shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation or notification,
The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (57 of 1994) and the Clinical Establishment (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010 (23 of 2010) or of any other law for the time being in force.
(1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty:
Provided that no such order shall be made after the expiry of a period of three years from the date of commencement of this Act.
(2) Every order made under this section shall, as soon as may be made, be laid before each House of Parliament.
Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.