Rajasthan HC Upholds ART Act Age Limits, Says Wife Under 50 Can Use Donor Sperm With Over-55 Husband’s Consent

The petitioners in four connected writ petitions challenged Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 (“ART Act”), after ART clinics refused treatment because one spouse exceeded the statutory upper age limit: 50 years for a woman or 55 years for a man.

They contended that the limits were arbitrary and infringed Articles 14 and 21, including by disadvantaging a married woman whose husband was over the age limit.

They also raised concerns about the Act’s application to transitional cases, but the judgment’s analysis focused on the constitutional challenge and the position of a wife seeking ART services using donor semen.

Section 21(g) of the ART Act requires clinics to provide services to a woman above 21 and below 50 years, and to a man above 21 and below 55 years.

Sections 2(1)(e), 2(1)(n) and 2(1)(u) define a commissioning couple, patient and woman; Section 27(2) regulates gamete-donor ages; and Rule 13(1)(f)(iii), read with Form 8, provides for consent to intrauterine insemination using donor semen.

A statute is presumed constitutionally valid, and a challenger must establish a constitutional infirmity; a classification or disqualification is not invalid if it has a rational nexus to its object.

The Court also relied on the principle that child welfare is a paramount consideration.

The Court held that the age limits further the Act’s objectives of safe and ethical ART practice and are rationally connected to maternal and child welfare, including the health risks associated with older pregnancies and the interests of a child requiring parental care and support.

It therefore found no basis to invalidate the limits as arbitrary or as a violation of personal liberty.

On the discrimination argument, the Court read the statutory definitions and consent framework as permitting a married woman who meets the age requirement to undergo ART using donor semen, with her husband’s consent under Form 8.

Thus, the husband’s age ineligibility does not, by itself, disqualify his wife from that route to treatment; the Court found no arbitrary distinction between married and single women on that basis.

It concluded that an otherwise eligible married woman may access ART using donor semen, subject to the statutory requirements, including her husband’s consent.

The connected writ petitions were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.