Delhi High Court Permits Sperm Retrieval Of Army Soldier In Persistent Vegetative State To Enable IVF Procedure
The Court permitted the extraction and cryopreservation of sperm of a soldier in a vegetative state, holding that prior consent for IVF treatment could be recognised in the peculiar facts of the case.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court directed the authorities to permit the retrieval and cryopreservation of sperm of an Indian Army soldier who is presently in a persistent vegetative state, to enable his wife to proceed with assisted reproductive treatment through IVF.
The Court held that in the peculiar facts of the case, the prior consent given by the husband for undergoing IVF treatment would constitute sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by the wife of a Lance Naik in the Indian Army, seeking directions for the extraction and preservation of her husband’s genetic material.
The petitioner contended that her husband, who had suffered severe traumatic brain injury while on duty, was presently in a persistent vegetative state and incapable of providing fresh written consent, thereby halting the IVF process, which had already been initiated before the accident.
A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that “as on date there is no express indication of consent from the petitioner’s husband, however, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found to be fair, reasonable, and just for the respondents to undertake the necessary procedure/steps which are required to take the IVF treatment to its logical conclusion”.
The Bench accordingly directed that “the petitioner’s husband's action and his consent of joining the IVF treatment be treated to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Section 22 of the ART Act”, and that “the petitioner’s consent be considered as valid consent for her husband for the purposes of IVF procedure, if the same is required for any other step/procedure”.
Advocate Arjeet Gaur represented the petitioner, while Ayush Gaur, SPC, represented the respondents.
Background
The petitioner was married to the soldier in 2017, and the couple had, in 2023, decided to conceive a child through assisted reproductive technology. However, in July 2025, the husband sustained a severe head injury while on operational duty in Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in a persistent vegetative state with no foreseeable neurological recovery.
Thereafter, although permission had initially been granted to continue IVF treatment, the process was subsequently halted owing to the absence of fresh written consent from the husband, as mandated under Section 22 of the ART Act.
Pursuant to directions issued by the Court, a specialised medical board at Army Hospital (R&R), Delhi Cantt., examined the patient and reported that he was incapable of providing informed consent due to severe traumatic brain injury.
The Board further opined that while surgical retrieval of sperm was technically feasible, the chances of retrieving viable sperm were meagre.
Court’s Observation
While considering the statutory framework, the Court noted that Section 22 of the ART Act requires written informed consent for assisted reproductive procedures. However, the Court observed that procedural requirements cannot be interpreted in a manner that defeats the substantive rights of individuals, particularly the right to reproductive autonomy, dignity, and motherhood under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court held that the inability of the husband to provide fresh consent was a direct consequence of the accident and could not be used to frustrate the couple’s earlier decision to undergo IVF treatment.
The Court further observed that the legislative intent of the ART Act is to address “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.”
The Court, thus, held that “Section 22 of the ART Act, thus, provides the mere procedure to address the broader, more fundamental problem, which is being faced by the citizens”.
It was further held that the husband’s prior participation in the IVF process and his consent thereto must be treated as sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement, particularly in the absence of any contrary material.
In arriving at its conclusion, the Court also referred to judicial precedents dealing with similar issues, including Simi Rajan v. Union of India and Ors (2026) of the Kerala High Court permitting the extraction and preservation of genetic material in cases involving incapacitated or brain-dead individuals, as well as decisions recognising posthumous reproduction where consent could be inferred from prior conduct.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner’s husband’s prior consent to IVF treatment shall be treated as valid for Section 22 of the ART Act.
The Court further held that the petitioner’s consent shall be treated as valid for subsequent procedures and that the respondents shall not deny the procedure solely on the ground of absence of fresh written consent from the husband.
The Court clarified that the process would remain subject to medical feasibility and compliance with other statutory requirements.
Cause Title: Ms X v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3086)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates Arjeet Gaur, Atul Yadav, Jasbir Singh Balhara, Sidarth Yadav, Prince Sharma, Subhan Singh Sejwal, Saurabh Bharti, Mayank Dev, Pawan Yadav, Kiran, Himanshi, Himanshu Dutt, Deepshikha
Respondents: Ayush Gaur, SPC; Riddhi Kapoor, Advocate; Harshit Joshi, Government Pleader