Desire Of Prospective Parents Subservient To Child's Welfare: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Constitutional Validity Of Upper Age Limit Prescriptions U/S 21(g) ART Act
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of age limits for ART services, holds wife below 50 is not rendered ineligible merely because husband crossed 55 and can use donor semen with his consent.
The Rajasthan High Court has held that the upper age limits prescribed under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 have a nexus with the object of securing the welfare of both the mother and the child. The restrictions, it said, do not by themselves render the provision manifestly arbitrary or violate the personal liberty of a married couple.
The Division Bench dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the provision, which bars ART services to women above 50 and men above 55. It clarified that a married woman who satisfies the age requirement can still avail ART services individually using donor semen, with her husband’s consent, even if he has crossed the limit. The Court found no arbitrary classification between married and single women.
A Bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja observed, “The desire of prospective parents must remain subservient to the welfare of the child.…the upper age limit prescribed under Section 21(g) of the ART Act has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved, i.e., the welfare of both the mother and the child… merely because age-related restrictions have been imposed on persons seeking to avail themselves of ART services, the restrictions do not, by themselves, render the provision manifestly arbitrary or constitute a violation of the personal liberty of an intending married couple”.
“…the expression ‘woman’ does not distinguish between a married woman, on the one hand, and an unmarried or single woman, on the other. Meaning thereby, a married woman can also avail herself of ART services individually”, the Bench noted further.
Senior Advocate R.B. Mathur appeared for the petitioner and Bharat Vyas, ASG appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners were four married couples in which the husband or wife exceeded the age limit, so ART clinics refused treatment. In one case the husband was 55 years, one month and 12 days old at marriage. In another, the first IVF cycle was undertaken in 2021, before the Act took effect on January 25, 2022, but the husband had crossed 55 by the time treatment could resume. The Act has no saving provision for such cases.
The petitioners argued the limits are arbitrary for a commissioning couple, that the Act treats married and single women unequally under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and that reproductive autonomy is protected by Article 21. The Union relied on child welfare and on rulings of the Kerala and Gauhati High Courts.
The Bench began from the presumption of constitutional validity and noted the Health Ministry’s letter of March 31, 2023, citing life expectancy, risks of high-risk pregnancy after 50 and paternal age-related genetic risks.
On classification, it held that the definition of “woman” in Section 2(1)(u) does not distinguish married from single women, and that Section 27 caps male donors at 55, so single women face a similar limit. Reading Rule 13 and Form-8 of the 2022 Rules, it held a married woman may use donor semen with her husband’s consent, agreeing with the Kerala High Court in Union of India v. Devayani S & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 11786.
Cause Title: Dr. Arvind Mathur & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:40484-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate R.B. Mathur with Advocates Utsav Verma, Manish Bhodiwal.
Respondent: Bharat Vyas, ASG with Advocates Rakesh Chaudhary, Devesh Yadav, Niti Jain Bhandari and Pulkit Bhardwaj, Riya Sharma, Vigyan Shah, AAG.