Rajasthan High Court Upholds Age Limits for IVF Treatment Under ART Act
The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the age restrictions prescribed under Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, ruling that the statutory limits are neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The Court observed that the restrictions have a rational connection with the welfare of the mother and the child born through assisted reproductive technology.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Taneja and Justice Inderjeet Singh delivered the reportable judgment on October 29, 2026, while deciding a batch of four connected writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the ART Act.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by four couples who had been denied IVF and other ART services by fertility clinics because one of the partners had crossed the statutory upper age limit. The petitioners challenged the restrictions on the grounds that they were arbitrary and violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioners argued that the age restrictions unfairly affected married couples, particularly where one spouse remained within the prescribed age limit but the other had crossed it. They also raised concerns regarding couples who had begun fertility treatment before the ART Act came into force on January 25, 2022.
Statutory Age Limits Under Section 21(g)
Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, prescribes the following age requirements for accessing ART services:
- Women must be above 21 years and below 50 years of age.
- Men must be above 21 years and below 55 years of age.
The provision places a statutory duty on ART clinics to provide services within the prescribed age brackets.
What Did the High Court Hold?
The High Court rejected the constitutional challenge and held that the upper age restrictions have a rational nexus with the objectives of the ART Act. The Bench observed that the regulatory framework seeks to ensure safe and ethical reproductive healthcare while protecting the welfare of both the mother and the child.
The Court considered the Government's justification for prescribing age limits, including maternal health risks associated with pregnancy at an advanced age, concerns relating to reproductive health and the importance of ensuring that a child receives adequate parental care and support while growing up.
It further emphasised that the desire of prospective parents to have a child through ART must be considered alongside the welfare and best interests of the child.
Consequently, the Court found no sufficient constitutional ground to invalidate Section 21(g) under Articles 14 and 21.
Important Clarification Regarding Married Women
A significant aspect of the judgment concerns married women whose husbands have crossed the prescribed age limit.
The Court clarified that a married woman who independently satisfies the statutory age requirements may avail herself of ART services as an individual using donor semen, subject to compliance with the applicable statutory requirements, including her husband's consent.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court considered the relevant provisions of the ART Act, the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Rules, 2022, particularly Rule 13 and Form 8.
This interpretation clarifies that a husband's age exceeding 55 years does not automatically prevent an otherwise eligible wife from accessing this particular ART treatment route.
Legal Significance
The ruling reinforces the statutory framework governing assisted reproductive technology in India. It highlights the relationship between reproductive autonomy, constitutional equality, medical regulation and the welfare of children born through ART procedures.
By upholding Section 21(g), the Rajasthan High Court has declined to interfere with the age limits prescribed by Parliament. At the same time, its interpretation of the donor-semen provision provides an important clarification for married women seeking fertility treatment where their husbands have crossed the prescribed age threshold.
Case Details
Case: Rakesh Babu Jaiswal v. Union of India and connected matters
Court: Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Bench: Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja
Judgment Date: October 29, 2026
Relevant Provision: Section 21(g), Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021
Constitutional Provisions: Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
Decision: The connected writ petitions were dismissed, and the statutory age restrictions were upheld.
Source: Rajasthan High Court judgment and legal reporting published on October 30–31, 2026.