The Madras High Court has ruled that the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, bars the use of Assisted Reproductive Technology for women over the age of 50.

In the said matter, the High Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the decision of the 7th respondent, Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, who had rejected the petitioner’s request to use donor gametes and access services under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, citing Section 21(g) of the Act.

The Bench of Justice S. Sounthar held, “Therefore, Section 21(g) of the ART Act creates a legal right for woman above the age of 21 years and below the age of 50 years to demand ART services as a matter of right, subject to conditions prescribed under Act…In other words, the woman outside the age bracket prescribed under the section, though may desire for ART services, however, cannot claim said services, as a legal right and enforce the same in the Court of Law.”

The petitioner argued that under Section 2(u) of the ART Act, the term 'Woman' is defined as any woman above 21 years who seeks services from an ART Clinic or ART Bank. Since the definition does not specify an upper age limit, the petitioner contended that the 7th respondent, Secretary of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, erred in rejecting her request for ART services solely based on her age.

The petitioner further argued that Section 21(g) of the ART Act only mandates ART Clinics to provide services to women between the ages of 21 and 50 years, but it does not imply that women above 51 years are barred from seeking ART services.

Referring to Section 21(g) of the ART Act, the Bench noted that ART Clinics are obligated to provide Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services to women between the ages of 21 and 50 years.

“...a woman is entitled to donate oocytes only upto the age of 35, however, she is entitled to be a recipient of gametes upto the age of 50 years. Since two different upper age limit are prescribed for a woman, who is donor and woman, who is recipient, the legislature in order to avoid confusion would have consciously omitted the upper age limit in the definition of the word 'Woman”, it said.

The Bench further clarified that, in line with the objectives and rationale of the legislation, the upper age limit for a woman seeking ART services is set at 50 years, as reaffirmed in Section 21(g) of the ART Act.

“Hence, we can safely presume that Act prohibits application of AR Technology to a woman above the age of 50 years”, it further held.

The Bench also noted that due to the natural ageing process, the health risks for a mother above 50 years are significantly higher compared to those below this age. The risks associated with pregnancy also increase substantially after 50. “

Therefore, the legislature deemed it appropriate to set an upper age limit for the application of ART. Hence, the prescribed age limits under the Act cannot be considered irrational,” the Bench observed.

The Bench upheld the age limit prescribed under Section 21(g) of the Act, stating that it is not irrational. Dismissing the petition, the court found no fault in the decision to deny the petitioner’s request for ART services based on Section 21(g).

Cause Title: Kavitha Anand v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:360)

The petitioner was represented by Advocate G.R. Hari, while the respondents were represented by Government Advocate E. Sundaram and Central Government Standing Counsel K.S. Jeyaganesan.