Age Restriction Under Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021

Source: Gauhati High Court 

Why in News? 

The division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in the case of X & Anr. v. Union of India and Others (2025) upheld the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021 (ART Act, 2021) which prescribes age limits for accessing ART services in India. 

What was the Background of X & Anr. v/s Union of India and Others (2025) Case? 

• The petitioners were a married couple who sought to challenge the age restrictions under the ART Act 2021. 
• After being unable to conceive naturally, the petitioners commenced medical consultations for an Assisted Reproductive procedure in 2020. 
• The COVID-19 pandemic interrupted their course of treatment, causing delays in their ART journey. 
• After the procedure did not yield a successful outcome in one hospital, the petitioners approached another hospital in 2024 to avail ART services. 
• On March 13, 2024, the hospital declined to treat the petitioners on the ground that they did not meet the age-eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act 2021. 
• The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21(g), arguing it violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petitioners contended that the rigid age-based exclusion failed to account for individual medical assessments and was arbitrary and disproportionate. 
• The petitioners argued that since they had commenced treatment prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act, the subsequent statutory restriction ought not to be applied to them. 
• The respondents contended that the ART Act 2021 constitutes a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing ethical, medical, and societal concerns related to assisted reproduction. 
• The respondents argued that age limits are founded on scientific evidence relating to maternal health risks, foetal outcomes, and child welfare. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The bench observed that while the right to make reproductive choices forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, as recognized by the Supreme Court in Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), this protection does not render every personal choice immune from regulation. 
• The Court stated that constitutional rights, particularly in the domain of social welfare and public health, operate within a framework of permissible regulation. 
• The Court held that Section 21(g) prescribes an upper age limit based on considerations of medical science, ethical standards, and the welfare of both the woman undergoing treatment and the child to be born, which fall squarely within the legislative domain. 
• The Court noted that a statute enacted by Parliament carries a presumption of constitutionality and the burden of establishing unconstitutionality lies heavily upon the challenger. 
• The Court held that economic and social welfare legislations are entitled to judicial deference, particularly where the classification adopted has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 
• The bench found that the age-based classification under Section 21(g) applies uniformly to all intending couples, is founded on an intelligible differential, and bears a direct nexus to the regulation of ART services in a safe, ethical, and socially responsible manner. 
• The Court held that the law applicable on the date when eligibility is considered must govern access to statutory benefits, even if earlier attempts failed prior to the enactment of the Act. 
• The bench stated that carving out individual exemptions on grounds of hardship or medical fitness would amount to substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy, which would traverse beyond the permissible limit of constitutional adjudication. 
• The Court concluded that Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 withstands constitutional scrutiny and does not infringe Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The petition was dismissed. 

What is the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021? 

About: 

• The ART Act 2021 is a comprehensive regulatory framework governing assisted reproductive technology services in India. 
• The Act was enacted to address ethical, medical, and societal concerns related to ART practices. 
• It aims to regulate and supervise ART clinics and ART banks, prevent misuse, and protect the rights of parties involved in ART procedures. 

Section 21(g) – Age Eligibility Criteria: 

• Under Section 21(g) of the ART Act 2021, ART services can be provided to women who are above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years. 
• For men, ART services are available to those above the age of 21 years and below the age of 55 years. 
• This provision was enacted to ensure the well-being of both the mother and the child. 
• The age limits are founded on scientific evidence relating to maternal health risks, foetal outcomes, and child welfare. 
• The provision reflects considerations of medical science, ethical standards, and social responsibility in the delivery of ART services.