Back
Relaxation Of Age Limits Under Section 21 of ART Act 2021 Permitted For Medically Fit Couple: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The has delivered a significant ruling, affirming the right of an older couple to pursue parenthood through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). In a petition filed by Babitha A Singh and her husband, Justice Vishal Mishra granted the couple the liberty to undergo In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment, despite the wife exceeding the prescribed under the .
A Quest for Parenthood The petitioners, a middle-aged couple, faced the tragic loss of their only son, who passed away at the age of 21 due to organ failure. Seeking to rebuild their family, the couple approached a medical facility, only to be denied treatment. The hospital cited Section 21 of the ART Act, which limits IVF procedures for women to the age of 50 and for men to 55. Despite medical reports declaring the petitioner fit to bear a child, the rigid age barrier stood as a legal hurdle until the intervention of the High Court.
Legal Arguments: Equality and Constitutional Rights Counsel for the petitioners argued that the biological desire for parenthood should not be extinguished by inflexible legislation. Relying on an extensive series of precedents—including rulings from the , , and —the petitioners argued that denying treatment based on an age limit creates an . They contended that if a single woman below the age of 50 can access ART while a married woman is disqualified simply because her husband is older, the criteria become discriminatory.
The State authorities maintained their position based on the of the Act, but the Court focused instead on the medical assessment of the petitioners.
Judicial Reasoning: Prioritizing Individual Capability The High Court’s analysis emphasized that Section 21 of the ART Act does not prescribe a "composite" age limit for a couple as a single unit, leading to discrepancies in how the law is applied. Justice Vishal Mishra highlighted that the Court has consistently permitted such relaxations in previous cases, such as , provided the petitioners acknowledge the inherent risks.
The court specifically noted that the petitioners had undergone rigorous medical evaluation. After review, the medical experts concluded that the
"Patient can be planned for
or IVF with
,"
essentially removing medical doubt regarding the procedure's viability.
Key Observations The judgment features several critical remarks regarding the court's stance on statutory constraints:
-
"The fact remains that if the doctors are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no.1 being patient is fit for Assisted Reproductive Technology, the age barrier will not come in her way for doing the same."
-
"This Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioners to undergo Assisted Reproductive Technology (IVF) at any Institution of their choice."
-
"The case of the petitioners will not be rejected on the ground of age barrier as the petitioner no. 1 is 52 years of age."
Final Verdict: A Path Forward In its final order, the Court permitted the petitioners to undergo the procedure at any institution of their choice, dismissing the age-restricted rejection. The Court underscored that while the petitioners are exempt from the age barrier, the medical institution remains at liberty to assess their fitness for the procedure. Furthermore, the court reiterated the importance of , ordering that the identities of the petitioners remain protected in accordance with .
This decision reinforces the growing trend in Indian judiciary to interpret reproductive regulations with a humanistic lens, ensuring that statutory provisions do not override the fundamental aspirations of individuals seeking to conceive.
