Gauhati HC Upholds Age Limits in Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 [Read Order]

Gauhati: The Gauhati High Court, on December 18, 2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which prescribes an upper age limit for couples seeking ART services. The Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, held that the age restrictions are based on rational considerations relating to health and child welfare and do not violate Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, a married couple who had been unable to conceive naturally and were denied ART services by a hospital due to their age, contended that the statutory prescription under Section 21(g) infringed their fundamental rights to reproductive choice and personal liberty. Section 21(g) mandates that ART services may be availed by a woman below the age of fifty years and a man below the age of fifty-five years.

The Court acknowledged the significance of reproductive rights, stating, “There can be no serious dispute that the right to make reproductive choices forms part of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” However, it clarified that constitutional rights are not absolute and operate within a framework of permissible regulation, particularly in matters of social welfare and public health.

The judgment noted that the Act was enacted to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework addressing ethical, medical, and societal concerns. The Court reasoned that the fixation of age limits is a matter of legislative policy, observing 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. These considerations fall squarely within the legislative domain.”

Addressing the challenge under Article 14 (equality), the Bench held that the age-based classification is founded on an intelligible differentia and bears a direct nexus to the object of the Act. “The age-based classification under Section 21(g) applies uniformly to all intending couples. It is founded on an intelligible differentia and bears a direct nexus to the regulation of ART services in a manner that is safe, ethical, and socially responsible,” the Court ruled. It concluded that “the provisions do not suffer from manifest arbitrariness and do not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Further, the Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that they had commenced treatment prior to the enactment of the 2021 Act, holding that this fact “does not create any vested right to continue such treatment contrary to the statutory prescription.” The Bench emphasized that granting individual exemptions based on hardship or medical fitness would amount to substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy. “To carve out individual exemptions on the grounds of hardship or medical fitness would amount to substituting judicial discretion for legislative policy. Such an exercise would traverse beyond the permissible limits of constitutional adjudication,” the Court observed, while dismissing the petition as devoid of merit.

Case Details:

Case Number: WP(C)/2344/2024

Court: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh)

Coram: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr Justice Arun Dev Choudhury

Date of Judgment: 18.12.2025

Petitioners: Pankaj Kumar Das and Another

Respondents: Union of India and 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr B.K. Gogoi, Advocate, and Mr N.D. Sarma

Counsel for Respondents: Mr D.J. Das, Advocate (R-2); Mr B. Chakravarty, learned CGC (Union of India); and the Deputy Solicitor General of India, Standing Counsel (Health)

[Read Order]