The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, affirming the government’s authority to prescribe upper age limits for individuals seeking access to fertility treatments. In a significant judgment, the division bench comprising Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja rejected challenges from multiple petitioner couples who argued that the statutory age caps of 50 years for women and 55 years for men were arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of their fundamental right to personal liberty.

The legal challenge centered on the assertion that these age-related restrictions created an unreasonable classification, particularly for married couples where one partner might exceed the stipulated age. Petitioners contended that while an unmarried woman within the permissible age bracket could access services, a married woman was effectively penalized if her spouse crossed the 55-year threshold. However, the court maintained that the statutory framework was designed with a specific legislative intent: to prioritize the welfare of children born through these technologies while mitigating health risks to the mother.

Balancing Parental Ambitions with Child Welfare

During the proceedings, the court extensively examined the rationale provided by the Union of India regarding the necessity of these age limits. The government justified the restrictions by highlighting life expectancy in India and the long-term responsibilities associated with raising a child until adulthood. The court noted that the legislative intent was not merely to address infertility but to ensure that the resulting child is born into an environment capable of providing stable, long-term parental care.

"The welfare of a child has always been given paramount importance, as reflected in various judicial precedents dealing with adoption and child custody ," the court observed. Justice Taneja emphasized that the regulation seeks to balance the reproductive aspirations of couples with the protection of the unborn child. The court relied on the argument that pregnancy beyond 50 years carries significant health risks, including gestational diabetes, cardiovascular complications, and a higher probability of chromosomal issues, such as Down’s syndrome. Furthermore, the court acknowledged that medical evidence suggests a decline in gamete quality with advanced age, which could potentially impact the health and developmental outcomes of the offspring.

The bench reinforced that a statute is not rendered unconstitutional merely because it imposes a barrier, provided that the barrier serves a rational public purpose. By establishing a nexus between the age caps and the objective of maternal and child well-being, the court concluded that the provisions under Section 21(g) are consistent with the state’s duty to regulate medical practices in the interest of public health.

Addressing Interpretative Ambiguities in Marital Status

A pivotal aspect of the court’s ruling was the clarification of whether a married woman is barred from accessing assisted reproductive technology (ART) services if her husband exceeds the age of 55. The petitioners argued that the definition of a "commissioning couple" under the Act unfairly restricted married women. In addressing this, the court provided a nuanced interpretation of the existing Rules, particularly Rule 13 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022.

The court observed that the Act does not intend to create an inequitable classification between married and single women. By examining the consent requirements for procedures such as intrauterine insemination with donor semen, the bench determined that a married woman may proceed with treatment independently, provided she meets the age criteria and obtains the necessary consent from her spouse.

"The learned Single Judge rightly found that the parliament never intended such an inequitable classification within a benevolent statute like the ART Act," the bench noted in its reference to earlier precedents. This interpretation serves to safeguard the rights of married women, ensuring that the ineligibility of a husband on age grounds does not automatically extinguish the wife’s access to fertility services, provided she continues to satisfy the legal parameters herself. This finding effectively dismantled the argument that the Act was inherently discriminatory against married women when compared to single women.

Judicial Restraint and Legislative Competence

The judgment reiterated the principle that courts must exercise restraint when reviewing socio-economic legislation. The court affirmed that the legislature, as the representative body, is best placed to determine the threshold for complex medical and social regulations. The ruling emphasized that while the desire for parenthood is a fundamental aspect of personal liberty protected under Article 21, this right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable, non-arbitrary regulations that serve a greater good.

The court dismissed the petitions, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that Section 21(g) suffered from manifest arbitrariness or fell outside the legislative competence of Parliament. By validating the current regulatory landscape, the bench has provided clarity to ART clinics across the state, confirming that while the age caps for both men and women are enforceable, the administrative application of these rules must remain flexible enough to prevent the unfair exclusion of eligible female patients.

With the dismissal of these writ petitions , the court has brought closure to the current legal challenge, effectively maintaining the existing framework of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 . All pending applications associated with these cases were also disposed of, concluding the current judicial intervention in the application of age-related restrictions for infertility treatments in Rajasthan. The outcome reinforces the primacy of the " best interests of the child " doctrine in reproductive health governance.